P.131 Does a multidisciplinary triage pathway facilitate better outcomes after spine surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Saskatchewan Spine Pathway (SSP) facilitates timelier imaging and more appropriate surgical referrals. In this prospective study, pre- and post-operative wait times, satisfaction, and outcomes were compared between SSP and conventionally referred surgical patients. Methods: A prospective matched cohort comparison of 150 patients (SSP group n=75; conventional group n=75) undergoing elective lumbar surgery for mechanical back and leg pain between 2011 and 2016 was performed with 1 year follow-up. Outcomes were measured with patient questionnaires, Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue back and leg pain scores (VAS), and EuroQol Group 5 –Dimension self-report (EQ5D). Results: Baseline measures were the same in both groups. Wait times to see the surgeon and for surgery were the same, and wait time for MRI was significantly shorter for the SSP group (p<0.001). SSP patients utilized more non-operative treatment strategies such as physiotherapy (p<0.04), and had higher satisfaction with pre-surgical care (p=0.03). Good surgical outcomes were obtained in both groups with no significant differences. Conclusions: There are minimal differences in post-surgical outcomes for SSP patients versus conventionally referred patients; however, the SSP facilitates significantly shorter wait times for MRI and non-operative treatment strategies. Pre-surgical patient satisfaction is significantly higher among SSP patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".