Antibiotics in the treatment of patients with lower back pain associated with Modic changes: a case series.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the clinical effect of antibiotic treatment for patients with low back pain and Modic 1 changes. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of patients treated at the Canadian Forces Health Services Centre in Ottawa and the McGill University Health Centre. Where available, pain, functional, and imaging outcomes in 11 patients treated between 2013 and 2015 were analyzed to determine effect of antibiotic treatment for patients with low back pain and associated Modic 1 changes on magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Conservatively, only 3 of 11 patients met the criteria for improvement for pain and/or function. While a larger proportion improved in the long term, outcomes were not thought to be temporally attributable to antibiotic treatment, as in most cases, ongoing therapy, medications, and/or injections were required. There did not appear to be a correlation between clinical improvement and associated end plate volume involvement for Modic changes. CONCLUSION: Antibiotics for the treatment of low back pain in the context of Modic changes on MRI did not generally provide significant improvement in pain and function for patients in this small cohort. Despite early excitement regarding this treatment, further research is required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".