MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941786056 · doi:10.3171/2019.2.spine181389

Determination of dynamic instability in lumbar spondylolisthesis using flexion and extension standing radiographs versus neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI

2019· article· en· W2941786056 on OpenAlexaff
Vivien Chan, Alessandro Marro, Jeremy Rempel, Andrew Nataraj

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionRadiographyMedicineSpondylolisthesisLumbarNuclear medicineOrthodonticsBack painRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In this study the authors sought to compare the proportion of patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis detected to have dynamic instability based on flexion and extension standing radiographs versus neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of all consecutive adult patients diagnosed with spondylolisthesis from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018, for whom the required imaging was available for analysis. Two independent observers measured the amount of translation, in millimeters, on supine MRI and flexion, extension, and neutral standing radiographs using the Meyerding technique. Interobserver and intraobserver correlation coefficients were calculated. The difference in amount of translation was compared between 1) flexion and extension standing radiographs and 2) neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI. The proportion of patients with dynamic instability, defined as a ≥ 3 mm difference in the amount of translation measured on different imaging modalities, was reported. Correlation between amount of dynamic instability and change in back pain and leg pain 1 year after decompression and instrumented fusion was analyzed using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included in this study. The mean patient age was 57.1 years, and 55.4% of patients were female. The most commonly affected levels were L4-5 (60.7%) and L5-S1 (30.4%). The average translations measured on flexion standing radiograph, extension standing radiograph, neutral standing radiograph, and supine MRI were 12.5 mm, 11.9 mm, 10.1 mm, and 7.2 mm, respectively. The average difference between flexion and extension standing radiographs was 0.58 mm, with dynamic instability detected in 21.4% of patients. The average difference between neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI was 3.77 mm, with dynamic instability detected in 60.7% of patients. The intraobserver correlation coefficient ranged from 0.77 to 0.90 mm. The interobserver correlation coefficient ranged from 0.79 to 0.86 mm. In 44 patients who underwent decompression and instrumented fusion, the amount of dynamic instability between standing and supine imaging was significantly correlated with change in back pain (p < 0.001) and leg pain (p = 0.05) at the 12-month postoperative follow-up. There was no correlation between amount of dynamic instability between flexion and extension standing radiographs and postoperative back pain and leg pain. CONCLUSIONS: More patients were found to have dynamic instability by using neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI. In patients who received decompression and instrumented fusion, there was a significant correlation between dynamic instability on neutral standing radiograph and supine MRI and change in back pain and leg pain at 12 months.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207