Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine examples of spondylolysis in which the pattern of separation was clearly asymmetrical, in order to learn more about the process of bone separation that produces this condition. Although the primary focus was on unilateral complete separation, examples of asymmetry represented by incomplete separation and by complete bilateral separation where the separation sites are in different locations on the two sides were included. Two collections were used, one consisting of Canadian Inuit skeletons curated at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and the other of 48 individual examples of asymmetrical spondylolysis from sites in a variety of localities curated by several different institutions. The first collection was studied primarily to observe early manifestations of spondylolysis, particularly incomplete separation, while various patterns of asymmetrical complete separation were the focus of the second. The results indicate that asymmetry is part of the earliest osteological picture of spondylolysis, with right-sidedness predominating, a condition perhaps related in some way to handedness. The right-side predominance appears to decrease with age. The ratio of unilateral to bilateral separation ranges from 3-33% in different studies, and a significant number of the unilateral separations have spina bifida occurring in the same vertebra. Overall, the specimens examined here, considered along with clinical cases, nicely illustrate a progression of spondylolysis. A unilateral separation may heal, it may progress to bilateral separation, or it may remain as a permanent condition, producing a pattern of degenerative changes that can include spondylolisthesis. A unilateral healing of bilateral complete separation is likely a rare phenomenon, at least after the separations have reached a certain level of maturity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".