MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013237478 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics10040185

“Nature Abhors a Vaccuum”: Invagination of the Small Intestine into the Lumbar Disc Space After a Spinal Fusion Operation

2020· article· en· W3013237478 on OpenAlexaff
Wonho Lee, Mathieu Boudier‐Revéret, Du Hwan Kim, Min Cheol Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior longitudinal ligamentMedicineAnatomyLumbarIntervertebral discInvaginationMagnetic resonance imagingSpinal fusionPosterior longitudinal ligamentIntervertebral diskLow back painRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 77-year-old woman having back pain due to an L2 vertebral body compression fracture took a lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In MRI, in addition to the L2 vertebral body fracture, invagination of the small intestine into the intervertebral disc space at L5-S1 was found by chance. On a lateral lumbar spinal X-ray, the lordotic angle was markedly increased at the L5-S1 level. Additionally, the L5-S1 disc space had widened. These X-ray findings indicate the segmental instability at L5-S1. The spinal fusion operation on L3-4-5 seems to have resulted in overt mechanical loading on the inferior spinal segment (L5-S1). We think the instability damaged the anterior longitudinal ligament and caused a tear in the anterior portion of the annulus fibrosus. The defect in the L5-S1 intervertebral disc after the tear would have caused the vacuum, which is presumed to have pulled the patient's small intestine into the empty space within the L5-S1 intervertebral disc. Although intervertebral invagination of intra-abdominal structures is not common, clinicians should be aware of the possibility of this complication in patients who have spinal segmental instability.

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)0.003
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 score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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