Cervical spine taper ratios: Normal tolerance limits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Spinal canal tapering, which can be measured as taper ratios, affects cerebrospinal fluid flow dynamics. We calculated the tolerance interval for normal cervical spine taper ratios to facilitate the detection of abnormal taper ratios. Methods We collected a series of patients who had cervical spine magnetic resonance studies reported as normal. We measured anteroposterior diameters of the cervical spine and calculated C1-C4, C4-C7, and C1-C7 taper by standard methodology. We calculated the normal tolerance limits for taper ratios and compared results of this study with data in previous reports on taper ratios. Results We enrolled 78 patients aged 2-55 years. The 99% tolerance limits for the taper ratios for C1-C4, C4-C7, and C1-C7 were -0.31 to +0.09, -0.11 to +0.14, and -0.13 to +0.05 cm/level, respectively. Age and sex were not significant variables for taper ratios. Taper ratios in this study agreed with those reported for controls in previous studies. Patients with syringomyelia in previous reports tended to have taper ratios outside the normal tolerance limits. Conclusion Normal limits of the cervical taper ratios are reported.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".