Meta-analysis of comparison two decompression surgical treatment for syringomyelia associated with Chiari Imalformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the therapeutic effects of foramen magnum decompression and foramen magnum decompression add cerebellar tonsillar resection on syringomyelia associated with chiari malformation. Methods Searched the English or Chinese data base on line, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria collect the literature, evaluate the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, then the data were analyzed using Revman 5.0 software. Results Eight studies involving 714 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses: there was no significant difference in short-term clinical improvement between two surgical treatments(P=0.29); Compared the rate of fever, there was statistically significant differences(RR=0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.96, P=0.04); Postoperative follow-up the clinical improvement, there was statistically significant differences(OR=0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74, P=0.0005); Follow up the syringomyelia disappear rate there was statistically significant differences(OR=0.21, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.37, P0.00001). Conclusions Compared with Foramen magnum decompression, Foramen magnum decompression add cerebellar tonsillar resection have a good result of the follow-up clinical improvement and syringomyelia disappear rate, but have a high rate of fever. There was no difference in short-term clinical improvement between two surgical treatments. Because the lower quality of included studies, a large sample studies are need to further checking the conclusions.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".