MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969889953 · doi:10.1093/neuros/nyz310_351

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prediction Score for Poor Postoperative Pain Control Following Elective Spine Surgery

2019· article· en· W2969889953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Yang, Jay Riva-Cambrin, Jonathan W. Cunningham, Nathalie Jetté, Tolulope T. Sajobi, Steven Casha

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyDepression (economics)Rating scaleSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Approximately, 30% to 64% of people suffer from poorly controlled pain following spine surgery leading to patient dissatisfaction and poor outcomes. The ability to identify these patients before surgery may be useful to facilitate patient education and the development of personalized clinical-care pathways to improve postoperative pain management. METHODS: Adult patients were consecutively enrolled through the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network registry and were included if they underwent inpatient elective cervical or thoracolumbar spine surgery. The outcome was poor postoperative pain control defined as the mean numeric rating scale for pain >4 in the first 24-h after surgery. A split-sample design was used to develop and validate the prediction model. The prediction model was transformed into a risk-based score and simplified to a 3-tier Calgary Postoperative Pain after Spine Surgery (CAPPS) score to maximize clinical utility. RESULTS: Of 1300 patients, 57% had poorly controlled pain following spine surgery. Seven significant predictors were associated with poor pain control: younger age, female sex, preoperative daily opioid medication use, higher preoperative neck or back pain intensity, higher PHQ-9 depression score, > = 3 motion segment operation, and fusion surgery. Notably, chronic pain and minimally invasive surgery were not associated with pain control status. The model was discriminative (c-statistics 0.74 [95% CI = 0.71-0.77]) and accurate (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit, P = .99) at predicting the outcome. Patients classified to low-, high-, and extreme-risk groups by the CAPPS score had 32%, 63%, and 85% predicted probability of developing poor postoperative pain control, respectively. This closely mirrored the observed probability of 37%, 62%, and 81% in the same risk-groups for poor pain control in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: This internally validated CAPPS score based on 7 easily acquired characteristics accurately predicted the probability of developing poor pain control after spine surgery. This score can be used to develop personalized preoperative and perioperative treatment strategies to improve pain outcomes.

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)0.002
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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