Accuracy of imaging grading in comparison to open laminectomy to evaluate pedicle screws positioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study design: Prospective experimental study. Objective: To compare the accuracy of O-Arm-acquired radiographic and computed tomography (CT) evaluation of thoracic pedicle screw placement with open laminectomy in a simulation laboratory. Summary of background data: Improving surgical safety and procedural efficiency during thoracic posterior spine instrumentation is essential for decreasing complication rates and possible related risks. The most common way of verifying the position of pedicle screws during the surgical procedure and immediately postoperatively is to acquire intraoperative fluoroscopic images and plain radiographs of the spine, respectively. Laboratory simulated surgery is a valuable tool to evaluate the accuracy of those exams. Methods: Twenty simulation models of scoliosis from T3 to T7 were instrumented by five spine fellows (total of 200 pedicle screws), followed by radiographic and CT images acquired with the assistance of the O-Arm which were evaluated by three independent raters. A fellowship-trained spine neurosurgeon performed laminectomies on the instrumented levels and assessed pedicle integrity (gold standard). Results: Forty-eight breaches were identified in the axial direct view after laminectomy. Of those, eighteen breaches were classified as unacceptable. Regarding the sagittal direct view, four breaches were observed, three of which were classified as unacceptable. Overall, both O-arm radiographic and CT evaluations had a significantly high negative predicted value but a low positive predicted value to identify unacceptable breaches, especially in the sagittal plane. The frequency of missed breaches by all three examiners was high, particularly in the sagittal plane. Conclusion: Postoperative evaluation of pedicle screws using O-arm-acquired radiographic or CT images may underdiagnose the presence of breaches. In our study, sagittal breaches were more difficult to diagnose than axial breaches. Although most breaches do not have clinical repercussions, this study suggests that this modality of postoperative radiographic assessment may be inaccurate. Level of evidence: 4.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".