Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score component validation using patient-reported outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) correlates with preoperative disability and response to stabilization, with patients with higher scores experiencing greater relief after surgery. However, there is a paucity of data demonstrating the extent to which each component contributes to preoperative clinical status and response to stabilization surgery. The objectives of this study were 2-fold. First, to determine how SINS components correlate with pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Second, to determine whether patients with higher SINS (10-12) in the "indeterminate" group respond differently to surgery compared to patients with lower SINS (7-9). METHODS: SINS and PROs were prospectively collected in 131 patients undergoing stabilization surgery for metastatic spinal disease. Association of SINS components and their individual scores with preoperative symptom burden and PRO symptom change after surgery was analyzed using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rho) and the Kruskal-Wallis test. SINS and association with preoperative PRO scores and mean differences in post- and preoperative PRO scores were compared for 2 SINS categories within the indeterminate group (7-9 vs 10-12) using the Wilcoxon 2-sample test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The presence of mechanical pain, followed by metastatic location, correlated most strongly with preoperative functional disability measures and lower disability PRO scores following surgical stabilization. Blastic rather than lytic bone lesions demonstrated stronger association with pain reduction following stabilization. Following surgery, patients with SINS 10-12 demonstrated markedly greater improvement in pain and disability PRO scores nearly across the board compared to patients with SINS 7-9. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of mechanical pain has the strongest correlation with preoperative disability and improvement in pain and disability PRO scores after surgery. Radiographic components of SINS also correlate with preoperative symptom severity and postoperative PRO, supporting their utilization in evaluation of spinal instability. Among patients with indeterminate SINS, patients with higher scores experience greater reduction in pain and disability PRO scores following surgical stabilization, suggesting that the indeterminate-SINS group includes distinct populations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".