Optimum Radiological Screening Examination for Lumbar Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective study was performed to assess the diagnostic contribution of oblique view films of the lumbar spine, to information obtained from anteroposterior (AP) and lateral films, as an initial screening tool for the detection of pars interarticularis defects. Twenty-two cases of lumbar spondylolysis were selected from 243 lumbar spine reports, randomly combined with 40 plain X-rays of normal lumbar spines, and evaluated by radiology residents. The frequency of correctly detecting a pars defect on lateral vs. right and left oblique views was determined. Of the bilateral spondylolyses, 85% were diagnosed on lateral films compared to 35% on oblique radiographs. Both views gave poor diagnostic yield in detecting unilateral pars defects. In evaluating a total of 186 X-rays, an average of 31 oblique films were incorrectly diagnosed, as compared to an average of 14 misdiagnosed lateral films. Considering the low sensitivity associated with the use of oblique view radiography, in addition to the extra cost and significantly increased radiation exposure seen with this procedure, our findings indicate that oblique views should be used only for selected patients who might require further investigation. We therefore recommend that the initial lumbosacral radiological evaluation be limited to AP and lateral views.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".