P.132 Is a positive nerve root sedimentation sign associated with better outcomes after lumbar laminectomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The nerve root sedimentation sign (SedSign) has been correlated with clinically significant lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), and promoted as a possible prognostic indicator. However, diagnostic methods were not clearly defined in prior reports. In this study, the clinically validated Saskatchewan Spine Pathway enabled diagnosis of neurogenic claudication due to LSS. The objective was to compare the outcome of lumbar laminectomy for neurogenic claudication with respect to SedSign. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively-collected data in patients with neurogenic claudication who underwent lumbar laminectomy. Outcome measures included Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire. Results: Laminectomy was performed in 106 patients, and 60 were SedSign positive. Outcomes did not differ with respect to SedSign for all outcome measures, in non-instrumented and instrumented cohorts. Improvement in walking distance was associated with dural cross-sectional area of stenosis (p=0.02). VAS back and leg improvements were associated with back dominant (p=0.038) and leg dominant (p=0.0036) pain. Conclusions: This is the largest analysis of SedSign with respect to operative outcomes, and the only study with validated criteria for defining neurogenic claudication. Although other radiological and clinical factors are associated with improvements, SedSign did not correlate with laminectomy outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".