Identifying Subsets of Patients With Adult Spinal Deformity Who Maintained a Positive Response to Nonoperative Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) represents a major cause of disability in the elderly population in the United States. Surgical intervention has been shown to reduce disability and pain in properly indicated patients. However, there is a small subset of patients in whom nonoperative treatment is also able to durably maintain or improve symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors associated with successful nonoperative management in patients with ASD. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of 207 patients with nonoperative ASD, stratified into 3 groups: (1) success, (2) no change, and (3) failure. Success was defined as a gain in minimal clinically importance difference in both Oswestry Disability Index and Scoliosis Research Society-Pain. Logistic regression model and conditional inference decision trees established cutoffs for success according to baseline (BL) frailty and sagittal vertical axis. RESULTS: In our cohort, 44.9% of patients experienced successful nonoperative treatment, 22.7% exhibited no change, and 32.4% failed. Successful nonoperative patients at BL were significantly younger, had a lower body mass index, decreased Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower frailty scores, lower rates of hypertension, obesity, depression, and neurological dysfunction (all P < .05) and significantly higher rates of grade 0 deformity for all Schwab modifiers (all P < .05). Conditional inference decision tree analysis determined that patients with a BL ASD-frailty index ≤ 1.579 (odds ratio: 8.3 [4.0-17.5], P < .001) were significantly more likely to achieve nonoperative success. CONCLUSION: Success of nonoperative treatment was more frequent among younger patients and those with less severe deformity and frailty at BL, with BL frailty the most important determinant factor. The factors presented here may be useful in informing preoperative discussion and clinical decision-making regarding treatment strategies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".