Comparison of two endoscopic spine surgical techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcome among patients who are surgically treated for lumbar disc herniation by transforaminal and interlaminar endoscopy techniques. METHODS: For the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, 31 patients were assigned to undergo the interlaminar technique and 24 patients the transforaminal technique. They were evaluated using visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index in the preoperative period, in the first postoperative period, and in the 12th month after the procedure. The clinical results between the two techniques were then compared. RESULTS: Overall, 89.1% of the patients obtained good results, with 12.5% complications in the transforaminal technique and 9.6% in the interlaminar technique. CONCLUSION: Although both the endoscopic techniques, compared in this study, are safe and effective for the surgical treatment of lumbar herniated disc, the interlaminar technique presented significantly better results and lower rates of complications than the transforaminal technique.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".