Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A case series of eight patients with idiopathic spinal cord herniation and a review of the literature. OBJECTIVE: To report on this rare entity, provide insight on its natural history, and propose an optimal management strategy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Idiopathic spinal cord herniation is a rare disease with 50 cases reported before the current study. METHODS: Eight cases (follow-up 1 month to 8 years) are reported using available information from patient charts, interviews, and assessments. All imaging studies are reviewed. The review of the literature was performed using PUBMED. RESULTS: Four patients, followed without surgical intervention, have not progressed. Of the three patients who underwent surgical repair by one of the authors, two improved and one was unchanged. A fourth patient, who was initially treated by another surgeon who failed to identify the dural defect and herniation, had a poor outcome. CONCLUSION: The pathophysiology of the dural defect is still uncertain. The typical presentation is Brown-Séquard syndrome. Microsurgical repair in cases with progression of neurologic deficits is usually successful in achieving recovery of function or arrest of progression.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
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 it