Management of Tarlov cysts: an uncommon but potentially serious spinal column disease—review of the literature and experience with over 1000 referrals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tarlov cysts were thought to be anatomic variants of uncertain etiology and clinical significance when initially described over 80 years ago. They are often detected in routine lumbosacral imaging and generally not reported in a differential diagnosis. There is increasing evidence that at least some Tarlov cysts are symptomatic and can have a significant adverse impact on patients' health and well-being. Women are disproportionately affected with this condition, often presenting with long-standing pain and neurological dysfunctions. Significant gender bias has been a concern in the management of these patients. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on patient selection or management approaches for symptomatic Tarlov cysts. This review article updates information on the prevalence, diagnosis, clinical significance, and treatments of these cysts. Based on these findings and experience with over 1000 patient referrals, a treatment decision algorithm for symptomatic Tarlov cysts was constructed to provide guidance for appropriate management of patients with these complex cysts.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".