Morphology of the thoracic intervertebral disc in the adult spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the morphology of the thoracic intervertebral disc (IVD) in the adult spine. Introduction There is a paucity of research available regarding the structure of the thoracic intervertebral disc. Despite this, a knowledge and understanding of morphology provides the clinician with a better understanding of regional function and pathology. Methodology The morphology of the intervertebral disc of 8 embalmed spines was studied via micro‐dissection of the posterior aspect of the motion segment. As a control of dissection technique one cervical spine and two lumbar segments were micro‐dissected and compared to published findings. Spines were removed from the donor using a posterior approach and were cleaned of superficial soft tissue and sectioned transversely through even numbered vertebral bodies. The posterior neural arch was removed via paracoronal sectioning and the costovertebral joint accessed. The posterior longitudinal ligament was removed in sequential layer dissection. The superior vertebral body was resected down to the vertebral endplate which was then cleared via curette. Results were journal and photo documented. Results The thoracic IVD demonstrates a morphological structure that is unique to other regions. Horizontal cleft fissuring as demonstrated in the cervical spine was significantly less developed and limited to the costovertebral region with no posterior midline migration. One spine failed to reveal fissuring. There was a high rate of end plate defects and variable nuclear fibrosis. Conclusions The thoracic IVD is a morphologically distinct structure from the adjacent cervical and lumbar spines. Grant Funding Source: NA
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".