MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radicular Pain After Vertebroplasty

2003· article· en· W4231346744 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Kelekis, Jean-Baptiste Martin, Thierry Somon, Stephan G. Wetzel, Pierre‐Yves Dietrich, Daniel Ruefenacht

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIrritationLidocaineNerve rootRadicular painSurgeryAnesthesiaLeakLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Design. During vertebroplasty (VP), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) may leak into the posterior epidural venus plexus, provoking symptoms ranging from radicular pain to medullar compression. Objectives. To propose and test the feasibility of a procedure (cooling system) to prevent radicular irritation caused by foraminal PMMA leakage. Summary of Background Data. Foraminal leak of PMMA, as observed during VP, may lead to radiculalgia. Several mechanisms of nerve root irritation have been proposed. Considering heat or local chemical irritation has led us to treat immediately by local periradicular irrigation with a cooling liquid. Methods. Four consecutive patients with observed foraminal leakage were treated by local fluid injection. Immediately after observation of a foraminal leak, a 20-gauge Chiba needle was positioned to reach the foramen. Ten cubic centimeters of lidocaine (0.2%) was followed by 100–200 cc of pressurized saline perfusion within 10–20 minutes (cooling system). Results. In all patients with foraminal leakage, no radicular pain existed after application of the cooling system. No complications were observed with its use. Conclusion. In presence of a foraminal leakage, the immediate application of a cooling irrigation may protect the root from injury, which is explained by the hypothesis that the main mechanism of injury may be more related to heat or chemical irritation of the nerve than compression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207