MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206442655 · doi:10.1177/21925682211072847

Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Practical Approach to Diagnosis

2022· article· en· W4206442655 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay Tetreault, Sukhvinder Kalsi‐Ryan, Benjamin M. Davies, Laura‐Nanna Lohkamp, Philip Garwood, Allan R. Martin, Jefferson R. Wilson, James S. Harrop, James D. Guest, Brian K. Kwon, James Milligan, Alberto Martinez Arizala, Mark Kotter, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineMyelopathyWeaknessNarrative reviewSpinal canalSpinal cordSpinal cord compressionCervical spondylosisSurgeryNeurological examinationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative Review. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to provide a stepwise approach to the assessment of patients with potential symptoms of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). METHODS: N/A. RESULTS: DCM is an overarching term used to describe progressive compression of the cervical spinal cord by age-related changes to the spinal axis. These alterations to normal anatomy narrow the spinal canal, reduce the space available for the spinal cord, and may ultimately compress the ascending and descending neural tracts. Patients with DCM present with a wide range of symptoms that can significantly impact quality of life, including bilateral hand numbness and paresthesia, gait impairment, motor weakness of the upper and lower extremities, and bladder and bowel dysfunction. Unfortunately, DCM is often misdiagnosed, resulting in delayed assessment and management by the appropriate specialist. The proper evaluation of a patient with suspected DCM includes obtaining a detailed patient history, conducting a comprehensive neurological examination, and ordering appropriate tests to rule in or out other diagnoses. CONCLUSION: This review summarizes a stepwise approach to the diagnosis of patients with DCM.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207