Canadian Spine Society1.01: Do lumbar decompression and fusion patients recall their preoperative status? Recall bias in patient-reported outcomes1.02: Trends and costs of lumbar fusion and disc replacement surgeries in Ontario: a population-based study1.03: Ontario’s Inter-professional Spine Assessment and Education Clinics (ISAEC): patient, provider and system impact of an integrated model of care for the management of LBP1.04: Validation of the self-administered online assessment of preferences (SOAP) utility elicitation tool1.05: Performance indicators in spine surgery: a systematic review1.06: Inter-professional Spine Assessment and Education Clinics (ISAEC): a networked model of care with changes to referral population profile and reduced surgical wait-times1.07: Improving spine surgical access, appropriateness and efficiency in metropolitan, urban and rural settings1.08: Reliability of the spine CPR score among emergency physicians1.09: Deriving a clinical prediction model for degenerative spine disorders1.10: Development of validated computer-based preoperative predictive model for reaching ODI MCID with 86% accuracy based on 198 ASD patients with 2-year follow-up1.11: Validation of the spine CPR score1.12: Can ultrasound detect curve progression of scoliosis without ionizing radiation?1.13: Relationship between age and nonoperative utilization in elective cervical spine surgery1.14: Larger global sagittal correction associated with increased PJK and major complications, but lead to better correction and HRQoL scores1.15: Comprehensive analysis of SRS appearance domain score drivers and comparative relationship to satisfaction in adults2.16: Incremental cost to Canada’s health care system of acute complications following spinal cord injury2.17: The prevalence and natural history of problematic spasticity following traumatic spinal cord injury2.18: Exploring the possibility of using artificial neural networks to predict mortality after spinal cord injury2.19: Developing a new index to predict mortality after spinal cord injury using machine learning techniques2.20: The impact of complications and opportunities to improve function, health and quality of life: our best approach to “cure” SCI today2.21: Delays in time from injury to specialized SCI centres increase in-hospital mortality in acute SCI2.22: The modified extremity motor (MEM) classification: A neurological classification of traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS)2.23: The stable spine central cord syndrome (SCCS): a prospective surgical cohort2.24: Changes following acute traumatic spinal cord injury: a prospective pilot study on serial MRIs2.25: Next-generation MRI identifies tract-specific injury and predicts focal neurological deficits in degenerative cervical myelopathy: development and characterization of accurate imaging biomarkers for spinal cord pathologies2.26: Translating state-of-the-art spinal cord MRI techniques to clinical use: a systematic review of clinical studies using DTI, MT, MWF, MRS and fMRI2.27: Motor cortex electrical stimulation to promote spinal cord injury recovery in an animal model2.28: Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis2.29: Classifying injury severity and predicting neurologic outcome after acute human spinal cord injury with cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers2.30: Spine surgery a mari usque ad mare3.31: Prognostic factors for survival in a surgical series of symptomatic metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a prospective North American multi-centre study in 142 patients3.32: Surgical management of spinal osteoblastomas3.33: General population utilities for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression health states3.34: Instrumentation following decompression for spinal metastases — Is there a need for fusion in addition to internal fixation?3.35: Do racial differences affect surgical outcomes in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy? Results from the prospective, multicentre AOSpine International study on 479 patients3.36: Is preoperative duration of symptoms a significant predictor of functional status and quality of life outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy?3.37: Surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy from an economic and outcome perspective: a cost–utility analysis of the combined data from the AOSpine North America and International studies3.38: Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective multicentre AOSpine North America and International CSM studies3.39: The impact of spinal manipulation on lower extremity motor control in lumbar spinal stenosis patients: a single-blind randomized clinical trial3.40: Predictors of improved pain, function and quality of life following elective lumbar spine fusion surgery3.41: Objective measurement of free-living physical activity (performance) in lumbar spinal s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Spine Society is a collaborative organization of spine surgeons advancing excellence in research, education and patient care.Accreditation: This event is an accredited group learning activity (Section 1) as defined by the Maintenance of Certification Program of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, approved by The Canadian Orthopaedic Association.Course objectives: The Annual Scientific Conference of the Canadian Spine Society provides a contemporary review of spine surgery and spine care in Canada.The conference is a joint meeting of the Canadian Spine Society and the Canadian Paediatric Spine Society that encompasses a full range of spinal problems and current solutions.This year the focus ranged from the best means of triaging back pain patients to avoid unnecessary surgical intervention to the complication of postoperative spinal infection.Pediatric presentations included the ongoing study of home-based pain management following scoliosis surgery and the status of the national spine registry.The program offered a carefully constructed mix of didactic lectures, research updates and interactive symposia, and an opportunity to obtain valuable continuing medical education while engaging in a vibrant exchange of ideas and points of view
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 | 0.017 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".