MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605630468 · doi:10.1177/2192568217694005

Intraoperative Death During Cervical Spinal Surgery: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

2017· article· en· W2605630468 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey C. Wang, Zorica Buser, David E. Fish, Elizabeth L. Lord, Allison K. Roe, Dhananjay Chatterjee, Erica L. Gee, Erik N. Mayer, Marisa Y. Yanez, Owen J. McBride, Paul M. Arnold, Michael G. Fehlings, Thomas E. Mroz, K. Daniel Riew

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComplicationRetrospective cohort studySurgeryIncidence (geometry)Mortality rateMedical record

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: Routine cervical spine surgeries are typically associated with low complication rates, but serious complications can occur. Intraoperative death is a very rare complication and there is no literature on its incidence. The purpose of this study was to determine the intraoperative mortality rates and associated risk factors in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. METHODS: Twenty-one surgical centers from the AOSpine North America Clinical Research Network participated in the study. Medical records of patients who received cervical spine surgery from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2011, were reviewed to identify occurrence of intraoperative death. RESULTS: A total of 258 patients across 21 centers met the inclusion criteria. Most of the surgeries were done using the anterior approach (53.9%), followed by posterior (39.1%) and circumferential (7%). Average patient age was 57.1 ± 13.2 years, and there were more male patients (54.7% male and 45.3% female). There was no case of intraoperative death. CONCLUSIONS: Death during cervical spine surgery is a very rare complication. In our multicenter study, there was a 0% mortality rate. Using an adequate surgical approach for patient diagnosis and comorbidities may be the reason how the occurrence of this catastrophic adverse event was prevented in our patient population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207