Process for Consensus Statements on Lumbar Total Disc Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: Consensus statements regarding the evidence-base for lumbar total disc replacement, as it pertains to payer decision-making, were developed through a modified-Delphi technique involving 17 spine surgeons and a former payer medical director. The Delphi process involved one round of anonymous survey and one round with a face-to-face meeting. The survey was a 51-item, electronically administered questionnaire to determine level of agreement with proposed statements on the evidence for lumbar total disc replacement and to provide additional diagnosis and management practice information for further deliberations. A subset of the proposed statements was discussed at the face-to-face meeting to identify reasons for disagreement, revise wording, and obtain consensus. The meeting involved presentation of the current evidence base for lumbar total disc replacement, as well as three themed sessions that were moderated by surgeons on the panel. The voting processes during meeting deliberations remained anonymous. Consensus was defined as ≥ 90% agreement. Consensus was reached on 11 statements, divided into themes that focused on patient eligibility and diagnosis, evidence criteria for coverage decisions, clinical evidence, and budgetary implications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".