MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392767414 · doi:10.1177/21925682241237475

Does Spinal Cord Type Predict Intraoperative Neuro-Monitoring Alerts in Scoliosis Correction Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Operative and Radiologic Predictors

2024· review· en· W4392767414 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulrahman Al-Naseem, Abdulaziz Al-Naseem, Derek T. Cawley, Ahmed Aoude, Anthony A. Catanzano, Muhammad M. Abd‐El‐Barr, Aman Sharma, Roozbeh Shafafy

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronal planeCobb angleSagittal planeScoliosisMeta-analysisSurgeryOdds ratioDeformityRadiographyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Design Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Objectives Predicting patient risk of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) alerts preoperatively can aid patient counselling and surgical planning. Sielatycki et al established an axial-MRI-based spinal cord classification system to predict risk of IONM alerts in scoliosis correction surgery. We aim to systematically review the literature on operative and radiologic factors associated with IONM alerts, including a novel spinal cord classification. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. A literature search identifying all observational studies comparing patients with and without IONM alerts was conducted. Suitable studies were included. Patient demographics, radiological measures and operative factors were collected. Results 11 studies were included including 3040 patients. Relative to type 3 cords, type 1 (OR = .03, CI = .01-.08, P < .00001), type 2 (OR = .08, CI = .03, P <.00001) and all non-type 3 cords (OR = .05, CI = .02-.16, P < .00001) were associated with significantly lower odds of IONM alerts. Significant radiographic measures for IONM alerts included coronal Cobb angle (MD = 10.66, CI = 5.77-15.56, P < .00001), sagittal Cobb angle (MD = 9.27, CI = 3.28-14.73, P = .0009), sagittal deformity angle ratio (SDAR) (MD = 2.76, CI = 1.57-3.96, P < .00001) and total deformity angle ratio (TDAR) (MD = 3.44, CI = 2.27-4.462, P < .00001). Clinically, estimated blood loss (MD = 274.13, CI = −240.03-788.28, P = .30), operation duration (MD = 50.79, CI = 20.58-81.00, P = .0010), number of levels fused (MD = .92, CI = .43-1.41, P = .0002) and number of vertebral levels resected (MD = .43, CI = .01-.84, P = .05) were significantly greater in IONM alert patients. Conclusions This study highlights the relationship of operative and radiologic factors with IONM alerts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207