Postoperative braces for degenerative lumbar diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lumbar pain due to generative disease is a public health problem and a cause of labor productivity loss and therefore generates cost to the country. Surgery is an option and orthotics are commonly used postoperatively. However, in the literature there is still no evidence if the braces are effective for a good functional outcome of the surgery. Objective: to develop a systematic review research project to evaluate the effectiveness of orthosis used after lumbar spine surgery in patients with degenerative disease regarding pain reduction and improvement of functional status. Method: This is a protocol for performing a systematic review of the literature, with the high quality standards of the Cochrane Group. From this, primary studies pertinent to the clinical question will be selected and its data will be extracted so that an answer can be achieved. Results: A protocol was elaborated containing the approach for a systematic review detailing the judgment criteria that will be used in the selection and evaluation of the primary studies and the management of its information. Conclusion: The protocol is already accepted and published in the Cochrane database. It aims to guide a systematic review that will answer the controversial clinical question if the postoperative orthoses is fundamental for the success of the surgery of lumbar degenerative diseases.
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 | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.004 |
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".