Patient-Reported Outcomes After Complex Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: 5-Year Results of the Scoli-Risk-1 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate PROs up to 5-years after complex ASD surgery. METHODS: The Scoli-RISK-1 study enrolled 272 ASD patients undergoing surgery from 15 centers. Inclusion criteria was Cobb angle of >80°, corrective osteotomy for congenital or revision deformity, and/or 3-column osteotomy. The following PROs were measured prospectively at intervals up to 5-years postoperative: ODI, SF36-PCS/MCS, SRS-22, NRS back/leg. Among patients with 5-year follow-up, comparisons were made from both baseline and 2-years postoperative to 5-years postoperative. PROs were analyzed using mixed models for repeated measures. RESULTS: > 0.05) and proportion achieving MCID did not differ significantly in patients with major surgery-related complications compared to those without. CONCLUSIONS: After complex ASD surgery, significant improvement in PROs were seen at 5-years postoperative in ODI, SF36-PCS/MCS, SRS-22r, and NRS-back/leg pain. No significant changes in PROs occurred during the 2 to 5-year postoperative period. Those with major surgery-related complications had similar PROs and proportion of patients achieving MCID as those without these complications.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".