MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956057809 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000003083

Utilization and Outcomes for Spine Surgery in the United States and Canada

2019· article· en· W2956057809 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter Cram, Bruce E. Landon, John Matelski, Vicki Ling, Anthony V. Perruccio, J. Michael Paterson, Y. Raja Rampersaud

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsMedicineDecompressionCohortSpinal fusionPopulationRetrospective cohort studyDemographicsSurgeryDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine variation in spine surgery utilization between the province of Ontario and state of New York among all patients and pre-specified patient subgroups. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine surgery is common and costly. Within-country variation in utilization is well studied, but there has been little exploration of variation in spine surgery utilization between countries. METHODS: We used population-level administrative data from Ontario (years 2011-2015) and New York (2011-2014) to identify all adults who underwent inpatient spinal decompression or fusion surgery using relevant procedure codes. Patients were stratified according to age and surgical urgency (elective vs. emergent). We calculated standardized utilization rates (procedures per-10,000 population per year) for each jurisdiction. We compared Ontario and New York with respect to patient demographics and the percentage of hospitals performing spine surgery. We compared utilization rates of spinal decompression and fusion surgery in Ontario and New York among all patients and after stratifying by surgical urgency and patient age. RESULTS: Patients in Ontario were older than patients in New York for both decompression (mean age 58.8 vs. 51.3 years; P < 0.001) and fusion (58.1 vs. 54.9; P < 0.001). A smaller percentage of hospitals in Ontario than New York performed decompression (26.1% vs. 54.9%; P < 0.001) or fusion (15.2% vs. 56.7%; P < 0.001). Overall, utilization of spine surgery (decompression plus fusion) in Ontario was 6.6 procedures per-10,000 population per-year and in New York was 16.5 per-10,000 per-year (P < 0.001). Ontario-New York differences in utilization were smaller for emergent cases (2.0 per 10,000 in Ontario vs. 2.5 in New York; P < 0.001), but larger for elective cases (4.6 vs. 13.9; P < 0.001). The lower utilization in Ontario was particularly large among younger patients (age <60 years). CONCLUSION: We found significantly lower utilization of spine surgery in Ontario than in New York. These differences should inform policy reforms in both jurisdictions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations78
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207