Steroid-Associated Acute Clinical Worsening and Poor Outcome in Patients With Spinal Dural Arteriovenous Fistulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a prospective cohort study to identify the association between steroids and clinical worsening and compare outcomes between patients with and without preoperative steroid administration. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas (SDAVFs) often were misdiagnosed and treated with steroids which led to acute worsening. METHODS: Patients with angiographically confirmed SDAVFs were recruited consecutively between March 2013 and December 2014 in two referral centers. We reviewed the history of all the patients to identify those patients who were treated with steroids before exclusion of the fistulas. Modified Aminoff & Logue scale (mALS) was used to evaluate the spinal cord function at different time points: before and after steroid administration, before operation, and at 1-year follow-up. Paired t tests were used to assess the mALS of patients with steroid administration at different time points. Unpaired t tests and Pearson chi-square test were used to assess differences between patients with and without steroid administration. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with (18.2%) and 81 patients without (81.8%) steroid administration were included in this study. At baseline, there were no difference between both patient groups, in regards to age, sex, duration, location of fistula, treatment, and preoperative mALS. Patients without steroid administration, however, had statistically significant better outcome according to their mALS at 1-year follow-up (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Steroid administration can induce acute clinical worsening in patients with SDAVFs that may persist despite successful obliteration of the fistula and should thus be avoided. 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".