A Comparison of Patient and Surgeon Expectations of Spine Surgical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design: Ambispective cohort study. Objective: Limited data exists comparing surgeon and patient expectations of outcome following spine surgery. The objective of this study was to elicit whether any differences exist between patient and surgeon expectations for common spine surgeries. Methods: Ten common age-appropriate clinical scenarios were generated and sent to Canadian spine surgeons to determine surgeon expectations for standard spine surgeries. Patients in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry matching the clinical scenarios were identified. Aggregated patient expectations were compared with surgeon responses for each scenario. A χ 2 analysis was then completed to determine discrepancies between surgeon and patient expectations for each scenario. Results: A total of 51 Canadian spine surgeons completed the survey on surgical expectations. A total of 919 patients from multiple centers were identified within the CSORN database that matched the clinical scenarios. Our results demonstrated that patients tend to be more optimistic about the expected outcomes of surgery compared with the treating surgeon. The majority of patients in all clinical scenarios anticipated improvement in back or neck pain after surgery, which differed from surgeon expectations. Results also highlighted the effect of patient age on both patient and surgeon expectations. Discrepancies between patient and surgeon expectations were higher for older patients. Conclusion: We present data on patient and surgeon expectations for spine surgeries and show that differences exist particularly concerning the improvement of neck or back pain. Patient age plays a role in the agreement between the treating physicians and patients in regard to surgical expectations. The reasons for the discrepancies remain unclear.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".