Evolution and Advancement of Adult Spinal Deformity Research and Clinical Care: An Overview of the Scoli-RISK-1 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of adult spinal deformity (ASD) has been cited anywhere between 2-32%, while the prevalence in the elderly population has been estimated at 68%. Neurologic complications following ASD surgery remains a concern. Previous literature reported incidence of neurologic complications varied between 1-10%, while non-neurologic complications reported were as high as 50%. To assess the incidence of neurologic deficits, complications, and outcomes following ASD surgery, an international group of spine deformity surgeons initiated a prospective, multicenter, international, observational study: Scoli-RISK-1. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-two patients were enrolled from 15 centers with ASD having primary or revision surgery with a major Cobb≥80°, revision including an osteotomy, and/or a complex 3-column osteotomy. Patients had lower extremity muscle strength (LEMS) exams performed preoperatively and at specific time points through 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 203 patients (74.9%) had no LEMS impairment (normal) and 68 (25.1%) had a LEMS of <50 (abnormal). Compared with baseline, 23.0% of all patients experienced a LEMS decline at discharge, with this rate decreasing to 17.1% at 6-weeks and to 9.9% at 6-months and remaining stable at 10.0% at 2-years. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that a decline in LEMS after complex ASD surgery is common and more frequent than previously reported. We identified such a decline in 23.0% of patients at discharge, with neurologic function recovering over time to a decline of 10.0% at 2-years postoperatively. The Scoli-RISK-1 study revealed valuable information regarding the incidence, natural history, and prognosis of neurologic and non-neurologic complications following ASD surgery and provides useful information for patient counseling.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".