MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955736843 · doi:10.1093/pm/pnz137

Anatomic Considerations for Injection of the Lateral Atlanto-Axial Joint

2019· article· en· W2955736843 on OpenAlexaff
Charis McNabney, Anesh Chavda, Hatim Alabsi, Stephanie Sellers, Darra Murphy, David C. Fenton

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVertebral arteryIntrathecalAnatomyRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to define the potential complications of intra-articular steroid injections into the lateral C1-2 articulations and safety margins to the relevant structures. METHODS: A total of 488 contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiogram (CTA) "arch to vertex" studies were retrospectively reviewed for theoretical intersection of the vertebral artery or thecal sac and distance of the named structures from the anticipated/theoretical trajectory of injection into the lateral C1-C2 joint. RESULTS: Patients were 60.4±15.8 years old and 55.5% male. In total, seven vertebral arteries and 11 thecal sac theoretical intersections were found. In cases without a direct intersection, the distance from the trajectory (range) was 0.71±0.18 (0.22-1.44) cm to the vertebral artery and 0.6±0.22 (0.14-1.8) cm to the thecal sac. CONCLUSIONS: Although injection of steroid into the lateral C1-C2 articulation for pain management has historically been reported to carry risk of severe complications due to close proximity and location variability of surrounding structures, our study quantifies the potential risk of such injections. Further, our analysis suggests that preprocedural imaging should be considered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207