Anatomical relationship between the accessory process of the lumbar spine and the pedicle screw entry point
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The vertebra accessory process (or tubercle) of the lumbar spine is an understated landmark which lies caudal to the mammillary process at the base of the transverse process. To our knowledge, no studies compare its relation to pedicle entry point for screw placement. We proposed to evaluate whether a valid and reliable relationship exists between the accessory process and the projected pedicle axis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The distance between the tip of the accessory process and the entry point of the pedicle screw was measured for 50 pedicles. The angle between this axis and the midline was measured. Interrater reliability was assessed intraclass correlation coefficient for two raters. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using SPSS. RESULTS: The mean distance between the tip of accessory process and pedicle screw entry point was 6.58 mm (SD ±2.05), and the mean angle between this axis and the midline was 29.4° medial (SD ±10.08). The ICC for the two raters for the mean distance and the mean angle was 0.974 and 0.894. The calculated mean distance between the tip of the accessory process and pedicle screw entry point was 3.2 mm (SD ±1.3) and 5.7 mm (SD ±1.9) medial and cranial respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The accessory process is a consistent and reliable landmark to guide pedicle screw entry point, and compliments other screw insertion techniques. To our knowledge, this is the first study in the published literature to assess this relationship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".