MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3022636135

Bone morphogenetic proteins & spinal surgery for degenarative disc disease: an evidence-based analysis.

2004· article· en· W3022636135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Medical Advisory Secretariat

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone morphogenetic proteinSpinal fusionMedicineDegenerative disc diseaseSurgeryBone morphogenetic protein 2Demineralized bone matrixHuman boneLumbarBioinformaticsBiologydBm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This review is intended to summarize the evidence of safety and effectiveness of a recently licensed spinal fusion surgery device that includes a recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP). BONE MORPHOGENETIC PROTEINS: BMP are proteins that occur naturally in the matrix of human bone and stimulate bone growth. For spinal surgery, BMP must be delivered to the vertebral level where bone growth is desired. The BMP device currently available in Canada comprises a specific cage device and a bovine collagen sponge that delivers BMP. This sponge must be implanted in combination with this specific cage device from the same manufacturer. The device is marketed under the trade name INFUSE™ and provides an alternative to autologous bone graft in spinal fusion. REVIEW STRATEGY: Published literature identified through searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE was supplemented with material submitted by the device manufacturer as part of regulatory approval in the United States and available through the public access area of the website of the Food and Drug Administration. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Evidence submitted to regulatory bodies in the USA and Canada indicates that the INFUSE™ device appears safe. The largest number of spinal fusion cases using BMP devices has been for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Although radiologic fusion occurs at a consistently faster rate among recipients of the BMP device than among recipients of autologous bone grafts, clinical outcomes (pain and disability) appear no different. Regardless of technique, improvements in pain and disability are reported by similar proportions of participants in all the arms of all the trials. BMP devices for cervical fusion have yet to be approved in Canada but one small scale trial has reported radiologic fusion in all participants in both BMP and autologous bone graft arms and improvement in neck pain scores for all participants. BMP devices for lumbar fusion are licensed, safe and appear equivalent to autologous bone graft procedures for spinal fusion in terms of patient outcomes with the notable exception that patients undergoing autologous bone graft report pain at the donor site. Laparoscopic approaches yield reductions in postoperative length of stay compared to conventional open approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→French-language works237,207→