The Prognostic Accuracy of Suggested Predictors of Failure of Medical Management in Patients With Nontuberculous Spinal Epidural Abscess
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To test the external validity of the 2 published prediction criteria for failure of medical management in patients with spinal epidural abscess (SEA). METHODS: Patients with SEA over a 10-year period at a tertiary care center were identified using ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) diagnostic codes; electronic and paper charts were reviewed. The incidence of SEA and the proportion of patients with SEA that were treated medically were calculated. The rate of failure of medical management was determined. The published prediction models were applied to our data to determine how predictive they were of failure in our cohort. RESULTS: A total of 550 patients were identified using ICD-10 codes, 160 of whom had a magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed diagnosis of SEA. The incidence of SEA was 16 patients per year. Seventy-five patients were found to be intentionally managed medically and were included in the analysis. Thirteen of these 75 patients failed medical management (17%). Based on the published prediction criteria, 26% (Kim et al) and 45% (Patel et al) of our patients were expected to fail. CONCLUSIONS: Published prediction models for failure of medical management of SEA were not valid in our cohort. However, once calibrated to our cohort, Patel's model consisting of positive blood culture, presence of diabetes, white blood cells >12.5, and C-reactive protein >115 was the better model for our data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".