MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566982365 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1583006

Defining Normative Quality Metrics in Complex High-Risk Deformity Cases: Results from the Scoli-Risk 1 Study

2016· article· en· W2566982365 on OpenAlexaff
Sigurd Berven, Rajiv Saigal, Virginie Lafage, Michael P. Kelly, Branko Kopjar, Justin S. Smith, Benny Dahl, Kmc Cheung, Leah Y. Carreon, Frank Schwab, Kathrin Espinoza-Rebmann, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Michael G. Fehlings, Lawrence G. Lenke, Christopher P. Ames

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeObservational studySpinal deformitySurgeryMetric (unit)DeformityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Quality metrics are a component of the value calculation, and reflect the risk of care. There is significant variability in complication rates, and quality metric standards in spinal surgery. Case complexity or surgical invasiveness is an important predictor of perioperative complications, and normative standards for quality metrics should be stratified by case complexity. The purpose of this study is to define normative quality metrics for complex, high-risk spinal deformity cases, and to provide a standard and baseline data that may guide quality improvement in comparative research. Material and Methods Secondary analysis of a prospective, international multicenter observational study (Scoli-Risk1) The study cohort included adults with spinal deformity in the cervicothoracic or thoracolumbar regions. Quality metrics include cumulative readmission and reoperation rates (30, 90, 180 days), wound infection, and DVT rates. Chi Square analysis is used to measure the relationship between osteotomy type and readmission and reoperation. Linear regression is used to determine the association of age and procedure with readmission and reoperation. Results 273 patients from the Scoli-Risk 1 study were included in the analysis. Cumulative readmission rates were 7.7 (4.8;11.5), 13.2 (9.4;17.8), 16.5 (12.3;21.4) percent at 30, 90 and 180 days after index surgery. Reoperation rates were 14.7 (10.7;19.4), 17.6 (13.3;22.6), 20.1 (15.6;25.4) percent at 30, 90 and 180 days after index surgery. Age was a significant predictor of readmission during the first 180 days after surgery (OR1.388 (1.068;1.803)), but not a significant predictor of the need for reoperation (OR=1.109 (0.903;1.361)). Osteotomy type (PSO/VCR vs SPO) was not a significant predictor of the need for readmission ( p = 0.986) or reoperation ( p = 0.753). The overall infection rate was 7.0%, including 3.3% deep infections. The rate of DVT was 3.7%. Conclusion Normative quality metrics are not established for complex deformity surgery in adult patients. This paper demonstrates that readmissions and reoperations in complex spinal reconstruction in adults occur at a higher rate than expected rates in less complex spine procedures. Age is an important independent predictor of readmission, but not the need for reoperation. For each decade older, patients are 1.4 times more likely to be readmitted within 6 months of surgery. This data may be useful to provide normative data for comparative studies of surgical outcomes with similar magnitude of deformity treated with operations of comparable invasiveness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207