Outcomes of Operative Treatment for Adult Cervical Deformity: A Prospective Multicenter Assessment With 1-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the potential for profound impact of adult cervical deformity (ACD) on function and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), there are few high-quality studies that assess outcomes of surgical treatment for these patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of surgical treatment for ACD on HRQOL. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of surgically treated ACD patients eligible for 1-yr follow-up. Baseline deformity characteristics, surgical parameters, and 1-yr HRQOL outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 77 ACD patients, 55 (71%) had 1-yr follow-up (64% women, mean age of 62 yr, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0.6, previous cervical surgery in 47%). Diagnoses included cervical sagittal imbalance (56%), cervical kyphosis (55%), proximal junctional kyphosis (7%) and coronal deformity (9%). Posterior fusion was performed in 85% (mean levels = 10), and anterior fusion was performed in 53% (mean levels = 5). Three-column osteotomy was performed in 24% of patients. One year following surgery, ACD patients had significant improvement in Neck Disability Index (50.5 to 38.0, P < .001), neck pain numeric rating scale score (6.9 to 4.3, P < .001), EuroQol 5 dimension (EQ-5D) index (0.51 to 0.66, P < .001), and EQ-5D subscores: mobility (1.9 to 1.7, P = .019), usual activities (2.2 to 1.9, P = .007), pain/discomfort (2.4 to 2.1, P < .001), anxiety/depression (1.8 to 1.5, P = .014). CONCLUSION: Based on a prospective multicenter series of ACD patients, surgical treatment provided significant improvement in multiple measures of pain and function, including Neck Disability Index, neck pain numeric rating scale score, and EQ-5D. Further follow-up will be necessary to assess the long-term durability of these improved outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".