Comparison of the surgeries for the ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament-related cervical spondylosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We designed and performed a network meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes among the 5 surgeries-anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF), anterior controllable antedisplacement fusion (ACAF), laminoplasty (LP), laminectomy (LC), and posterior decompression with instrumented fusion (PDF)-for patients with cervical spondylosis related to the ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Web of Science (firstly available-2019) were selected for literature search. We performed a network meta-analysis with the included studies. A Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the study quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Total 23 studies with 1516 patients were included in our analysis. We found that ACCF achieved the most improvement in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores and excellent and good recovery rate, ACAF achieved the best improvement of the improvement rate and lordosis. LP got the best operative time and blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that both anterior (ACCF and ACAF) and posterior (LP, LC, and PDF) procedures have their strengths and weaknesses. Clinicians need to select the most appropriate surgery with a comprehensive consideration of the clinical condition of each patient with OPLL-related cervical spondylosis.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".