Using Equipoise to Determine the Radiographic Characteristics Leading to Agreement on Best Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Objectives Our goal was to assess radiographic characteristics associated with agreement and disagreement in treatment recommendation in thoracolumbar (TL) burst fractures. Methods A panel of 22 AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma experts reviewed 183 cases and were asked to: (1) classify the fracture; (2) assess degree of certainty of PLC disruption; (3) assess degree of comminution; and (4) make a treatment recommendation. Equipoise threshold used was 77% (77:23 distribution of uncertainty or 17 vs 5 experts). Two groups were created: consensus vs equipoise. Results Of the 183 cases reviewed, the experts reached full consensus in only 8 cases (4.4%). Eighty-one cases (44.3%) were included in the agreement group and 102 cases (55.7%) in the equipoise group. A3/A4 fractures were more common in the equipoise group (92.0% vs 83.7%, P < .001). The agreement group had higher degree of certainty of PLC disruption [35.8% (SD 34.2) vs 27.6 (SD 27.3), P < .001] and more common use of the M1 modifier (44.3% vs 38.3%, P < .001). Overall, the degree of comminution was slightly higher in the equipoise group [47.8 (SD 20.5) vs 45.7 (SD 23.4), P < .001]. Conclusions The agreement group had a higher degree of certainty of PLC injury and more common use of M1 modifier (more type B fractures). The equipoise group had more A3/A4 type fractures. Future studies are required to identify the role of comminution in decision making as degree of comminution was slightly higher in the equipoise group.
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 | 0.019 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".