Establishing the Socio-Economic Impact of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Is Fundamental to Improving Outcomes [AO Spine RECODE-DCM Research Priority Number 8]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Literature Review (Narrative). OBJECTIVE: To contextualize AO Spine RECODE-DCM research priority number 5: What is the socio-economic impact of DCM? (The financial impact of living with DCM to the individual, their supporters, and society as a whole). METHODS: In this review, we introduce the methodology of health-economic investigation, including potential techniques and approaches. We summarize the current health-economic evidence within DCM, so far focused on surgical treatment. We also cover the first national estimate, in partnership with Myelopathy.org from the United Kingdom, of the cost of DCM to society. We then demonstrate the significance of this question to advancing care and outcomes in the field. RESULTS: DCM is a common and often disabling condition, with a significant lack of recognition. While evidence demonstrates the cost-effectives of surgery, even among higher income countries, health inequalities exist. Further the prevalent residual disability in myelopathy, despite treatment affects both the individual and society as a whole. A report from the United Kingdom provides the first cost-estimate to their society; an annual cost of ∼£681.6 million per year, but this is likely a significant underestimate. CONCLUSION: A clear quantification of the impact of DCM is needed to raise the profile of a common and disabling condition. Current evidence suggests this is likely to be globally substantial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".