MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808890608 · doi:10.14444/5042

T1 Slope Minus Cervical Lordosis (TS-CL), the Cervical Answer to PI-LL, Defines Cervical Sagittal Deformity in Patients Undergoing Thoracolumbar Osteotomy

2018· article· en· W2808890608 on OpenAlexaff
Themistocles S. Protopsaltis, Jamie S. Terran, Alex Soroceanu, Michael J. Moses, Nicolas Bronsard, Justin S. Smith, Eric O. Klineberg, Gregory M. Mundis, Han Jo Kim, Richard A. Hostin, Robert A. Hart, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Shay Bess, Christopher P. Ames, Frank J. Schwab, Virginie Lafage

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Spine Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSagittal planeOsteotomyKyphosisDeformitySurgeryRetrospective cohort studyNuclear medicineLordosisRadiographyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background: Cervical kyphosis and C2-C7 plumb line (CPL) are established descriptors of cervical sagittal deformity (CSD). Reciprocal changes in these parameters have been demonstrated in thoracolumbar deformity correction. The purpose of this study was to investigate the development of CSD, using T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL) to define CSD and to correlate TS-CL and a novel global sagittal parameter, cervical-thoracic pelvic angle (CTPA), with CPL. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients with thoracolumbar deformity undergoing three-column osteotomy was performed. Preoperative and postoperative cervical parameters were investigated. Linear regression for postoperative values resulted in a CPL of 4 cm corresponding to a TS-CL threshold of 17°. Patients were classified based on postoperative TS-CL into uncompensated (TS-CL > 17°) or compensated cohorts (TS-CL < 17°); the two were compared using an unpaired t test. Logistic regression modeling was used to determine predictors of postoperative CSD. Results: A total of 223 patients with thoracolumbar deformity (mean age, 57.56 years) were identified. CTPA correlated with CPL (preoperative r = .85, postoperative r = .69). TS-CL correlated with CTPA (preoperative r = .52, postoperative r = .37) and CPL (preoperative r = .52; postoperative r = .37). CSD had greater preoperative CPL (P < .001) and CTPA (P < .001). The compensated cohort had a decrease in TS-CL (from 10.2 to 8.0) with sagittal vertical axis (SVA) correction, whereas the uncompensated had an increase in TS-CL (from 22.3 to 26.8) with all P < .001. Reciprocal change was demonstrated in the compensated group given that CL decreased with SVA correction (r = .39), but there was no such correlation in the uncompensated. Positive predictors of postoperative CSD included baseline TS-CL > 17° (P = .007), longer fusion (P = .033), and baseline CTPA (P = .029). Conclusions: TS-CL and CTPA correlated significantly with established sagittal balance measures. Whereas reciprocal change in cervical and thoracolumbar alignment was demonstrated in the compensated cohort, the uncompensated population had progression of their cervical deformities after three-column osteotomy. Clinical Relevance: The balance between TS-CL mirrors the relationship between pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis in defining deformities of their respective spinal regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Spine SurgerySame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207