Cervical Sagittal Alignment in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Among patients with CSM, we aimed to evaluate the extent to which: (1) Preoperative cervical sagittal alignment is associated with health-related quality of life, function, and symptoms; (2) Surgery leads to changes in cervical sagittal alignment; and (3) Postoperative cervical sagittal alignment is associated with health-related quality of life, function, and symptoms at 12 months of follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The importance of maintaining or improving cervical sagittal alignment in the surgical management of patients with CSM has not been established. METHODS: We measured C2-C7 Cobb angle, T1 slope, and C2-C7 cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA). We tested for associations with Neck Disability Index, Pain Scales for neck and arm pain, EuroQol 5D, Short Form 12 Physical and Mental Component Summaries, and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores. We adjusted for potential confounders using multiple linear regression, and we performed various prespecified subgroup (cSVA > 40 mm, surgical approach) and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Among 250 patients, adjusted analyses yielded significant inverse associations prior to surgery between each of cSVA and T1 slope with SF12 Physical Component Summaries (T1 slope: -0.14, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.01, P = 0.03; C2-C7 cSVA: -0.13, 95% CI --0.21 to -0.05 P < 0.01). Surgery was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in cSVA across the cohort (+5.8 mm [SD 11.7], P < 0.01) but no change in Cobb angle or T1 slope. At 12-months after surgery, there were no significant associations between alignment parameters or change in alignment and any measures of health-related quality of life, function, or symptoms. Results were consistent across subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Increased cSVA and T1 slope were associated with inferior health-related quality of life at presentation among patients with CSM, but no significant associations were observed following surgical treatment.Level of Evidence: 3.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".