The impact of scoliosis surgery on pulmonary function in spinal muscular atrophy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scoliosis often occurs coincident with pulmonary function deterioration in spinal muscular atrophy but a causal relationship has not yet been reliably established. A systematic literature review was performed, with pulmonary function testing being the primary outcome pre- and post-scoliosis surgery. Levels of evidence were determined and GRADE recommendations made. Ninety studies were identified with only 14 meeting inclusion criteria. Four studies were level III and the rest were level IV evidence. The average age at surgical intervention was 11.8 years (follow-up 6.1 years). Post-operative pulmonary function progressively declined for the majority of studies. Otherwise, pulmonary function: improved (two studies), were unchanged (two studies), had a decreased rate of decline (three studies), declined initially then returned to baseline (two studies). Respiratory and spine-based complications were common. Given the available evidence, the following GRADE C recommendations were made: (1) surgery is most often associated with decreases in pulmonary function; (2) the impact of surgery on pulmonary function is variable, but does not improve over pre-operative baseline; (3) surgery may result in a decreased rate of decline in pulmonary function post-operatively. Given this lack of evidence-based support, the risk-benefit balance should be taken into consideration when contemplating scoliosis surgery.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".