MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395663279 · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.04.027

Preoperative expectations of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: an observational study from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network

2024· article· en· W4395663279 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alwalaa Althagafi, Nicolas Dea, Nathan Evaniew, Raja Rampersaud, W. Bradley Jacobs, Jérôme Paquet, Jefferson R. Wilson, Hamilton Hall, Christopher S. Bailey, Michael H. Weber, Andrew Nataraj, Najmedden Attabib, David W. Cadotte, Philippe Phan, Sean Christie, Charles G. Fisher, Neil Manson, Kenneth Thomas, Greg McIntosh, Raphaële Charest-Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Spine Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCanada East Spine CentreMcGill University Health CentreHorizon Health NetworkLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversité LavalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalCanadian Respiratory Research NetworkCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecOttawa HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity Health NetworkWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversity of CalgaryVancouver Spine Surgery Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyelopathyObservational studyCervical spineSurgeryCervical vertebraePhysical therapySpinal cordInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite an abundance of literature on degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), little is known about preoperative expectations of these patients. PURPOSE: The primary objective was to describe patient preoperative expectations. Secondary objectives included identifying patient characteristics associated with high preoperative expectations and to determine if expectations varied depending on myelopathy severity. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of a prospective multicenter, observational cohort of patients with DCM. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who consented to undergo surgical treatment between January 2019 and September 2022 were included. OUTCOMES MEASURES: An 11-domain expectation questionnaire was completed preoperatively whereby patients quantified the expected change in each domain. METHODS: The most important expected change was captured. A standardized expectation score was calculated as the sum of each expectation divided by the maximal possible score. The high expectation group was defined by patients who had an expectation score above the 75th percentile. Predictors of patients with high expectations were determined using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: There were 262 patients included. The most important patient expectation was preventing neurological worsening (40.8%) followed by improving balance when standing or walking (14.5%), improving independence in everyday activities (10.3%), and relieving arm tingling, burning and numbness (10%). Patients with mild myelopathy were more likely to select no worsening as the most important expected change compared to patients with severe myelopathy (p<.01). Predictors of high patient expectations were: having fewer comorbidities (OR -0.30 for every added comorbidity, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.10, p=.01), a shorter duration of symptoms (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.35-1.19, p=.02), no contribution from "failure of other treatments" on the decision to undergo surgery (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.56-2.71, p=.02) and more severe neck pain (OR 0.19 for 1 point increase, 95% CI 0.05-0.37, p=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients undergoing surgery for DCM expect prevention of neurological decline, better functional status, and improvement in their myelopathic symptoms. Stopping neurological deterioration is the most important expected outcomes by patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Spine JournalSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207