In-hospital complications after cervical fusion in cases with versus without cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with cerebral palsy (CP) are at increased risk for cervical spine pathology. Cervical fusion surgery may be considered in this population, but perioperative outcomes relative to patients without CP remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital complications after cervical fusion in patients with versus without cerebral palsy (CP) using a retrospective cohort design. Methods: Cervical fusion cases with and without CP were identified in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. In-hospital adverse events were tabulated and grouped into any (AAE), serious (SAE), and minor adverse events (MAE). Length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality were assessed. Multiple logistic regression models with and without 1:1 propensity matching were used to compare outcomes between cases with and without CP, controlling for demographic and preoperative variables. Results: After weighting, 1,518,012 cases were included in the study population, of which 4,554 (0.30%) had CP. Those with CP were younger, more often male, suffered more comorbidities, more frequently operated on from a posterior or combined approach, and were more frequently addressed at more than one level. By multiple logistic regression after matching, CP cases had higher odds of AAE (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.05-2.81; p=0.030) and MAE (OR 2.07; 95% CI 1.20-3.57; p=0.009), but no differences in odds of SAE or in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: As there is increasing awareness of potentially cervical pathology in the CP population, the current study suggests that surgical intervention for this population can be appropriately considered without severe in-hospital morbidity or mortality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".