Level Diagnosis of Cervical Compressive Myelopathy: Signs, Symptoms, and Lesions Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To elucidate signs and symptoms corresponding to each vertebral level for level-specific diagnoses. Methods: We studied 106 patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. Patients who showed a single compressive site on magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) were selected, and signs, symptoms, and the levels of the MRI lesions were studied. Results: Five of 12 patients (41.7%) with C4-5 intervertebral level lesions showed decreased or absent biceps and brachioradialis reflexes, while 4 of these patients (33.3%) showed generalized hyperreflexia. In comparison, 5 of 24 patients (20.8%) with C5-6 intervertebral level lesions showed decreased or absent triceps reflexes; however, 9 of these patients (37.5%) showed decreased or absent biceps and brachioradialis reflexes. Conclusions: C4-5 intervertebral level lesions not only showed C6 segment signs but also showed more rostral segment signs. Similarly, C5-6 intervertebral level lesions not only showed C7 segment signs but also showed C6 or more rostral segment signs. J Neurol Res. 2013;3(5):135-141 doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/jnr236w
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".