MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942506951 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1583086

The Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale: Establishing Criteria for Mild, Moderate, and Severe Disease in Patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

2016· article· en· W2942506951 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay Tetreault, Aria Nouri, Anoushka Singh, Ronald Bartels, Branko Kopjar, Paul M. Arnold, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyelopathyQuality of life (healthcare)Minimal clinically important differencePhysical therapyPopulationConstruct validitySeverity of illnessInternal medicineSurgeryRandomized controlled trialSpinal cordPatient satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score is a validated, investigator-administered tool used to evaluate functional status in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). This scale is increasingly used in this population to measure baseline myelopathy severity, postoperative improvements and social independence. There is, however, no study that determines what scores on the mJOA constitute mild, moderate and severe disease. Patients in different severity categories are managed differently both intraoperatively and postoperatively; therefore, establishing this criteria has clinical value across the whole spectrum of care. This study aims to determine appropriate cut-offs between mild, moderate and severe myelopathy and to examine the construct validity of these definitions. Material and Methods Between December 2005 and January 2011, 757 patients with clinically-diagnosed and imaging-confirmed CSM were enrolled in either the prospective, multicenter CSM-North America (n=278) or CSM-International (n=479) study at 26 global sites. Functional status and quality of life were evaluated in these patients at baseline and at 6-, 12- and 24-months postoperative using a wide variety of outcome measures, including the mJOA, Nurick score, Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Short-form-36 (SF-36). Using the Nurick grade as an anchor, ROC analysis was conducted to determine the cut-offs between mild and moderate myelopathy and between moderate and severe disease. These cut-offs were validated by developing and testing various constructs. Specifically, we examined whether patients in different severity groups had significantly different functional impairment, disability, symptomatology, imaging findings and post-treatment improvements. Finally, members of AOSpine International were surveyed to see what professionals viewed as appropriate cut-offs between severity categories. Results In ROC analysis, a mJOA of 14 was determined to be the cut-off between mild and moderate myelopathy and a score of 11 as the score between moderate and severe disease. Patients in the severe myelopathy group (n=254) had significantly reduced quality of life and functional status and a greater number of signs and symptoms than patients classified as mild (n=193) or moderate (n=296). Furthermore, severe patients required greater improvements on the mJOA to achieve a minimum clinically important difference. From our survey, a score of 15 (n=143, 34.38%) was the most commonly selected cut-off between mild and moderate myelopathy (mean 14.38). The majority of respondents selected 10 (n=178, 42.79%) as the mJOA cut-off between moderate and severe myelopathy (mean 11.26) Conclusion Based on our results, mild myelopathy can be defined as a mJOA=15-17, moderate as mJOA=12-14 and severe as mJOA < 12. These categories are the same as those established by the AOSpine study group for the purpose of the CSM-North America study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207