MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154824738 · doi:10.7759/cureus.14418

Management of Cervical Spine Fractures: A Literature Review

2021· review· en· W3154824738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Waseem Beeharry, Komal Moqeem, Mujeeb U Rohilla

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical spineMedicineSPINE (molecular biology)OrthodonticsSurgeryBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unique anatomy and flexibility of the cervical spine predispose it to a risk of injury. Trauma to the cervical spine encompasses a wide range of injuries from minor muscular strains to life-threatening fracture-dislocations associated with spinal cord lesions. Initial assessment and management should follow the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocols with adequate protection of the cervical spine through triple immobilisation to prevent any unnecessary movement, which can make the patient susceptible to further neurological injuries. Although the presence of cervical spine injury is very often overt, reliance on clinical examination alone is sometimes not sufficient and potentially requires further imaging. Clinical decision rules such as the Canadian C-Spine Rule are frequently used to risk-stratify patients needing radiography. The level of cervical spine instability and knowledge of their unique classification systems is of paramount importance and assists in the decision-making process to guide definitive management. In this review, we also propose an algorithm to aid the initial management of a patient with suspected cervical spine injury in the emergency department.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207