Influencing Factors of Recurrence of Lumbar Disc Herniation After Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy: A Meta-Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) remains one of the extremely common diseases in the elderly population, and despite the fact that percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) can be an effective treatment for LDH, prognostic recurrence of the patients is still a clinical problem that needs to be addressed. Objective: To perform a meta-analysis of the influencing factors of disease recurrence after PTED for LDH to provide evidence for clinical practice. Methods: By screening the PubMed, EMbase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies on disease recurrence after PTED for LDH, we extracted the authors, publication time, outcome measures, and other indicators were extracted for meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: The online retrieval and rigorous screening returned 8 valid articles for analysis, all with high reference value, as their Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) scores were above 6. According to meta-analyses, there were no differences in gender and LDH type and location among patients with LDH recurrence after PTED treatment (P > .05); however, statistical significance was present in Pfirrmann grading, incomplete nucleus pulposus removal during surgery, and Modic changes (P < .05), indicating that these indexes were the influencing factors of LDH recurrence. Conclusions: Pfirrmann grading, incomplete nucleus pulposus removal during surgery, and Modic changes are related factors affecting LDH recurrence after PTED.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".