Potential thresholds of critically increased cardiac-related spinal cord motion in degenerative cervical myelopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction New diagnostic techniques are a substantial research focus in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). This cross-sectional study determined the significance of cardiac-related spinal cord motion and the extent of spinal stenosis as indicators of mechanical strain on the cord. Methods Eighty-four DCM patients underwent MRI/clinical assessments and were classified as MRI+ [T2-weighted (T2w) hyperintense lesion in MRI] or MRI− (no T2w-hyperintense lesion). Cord motion (displacement assessed by phase-contrast MRI) and spinal stenosis [adapted spinal canal occupation ratio (aSCOR)] were related to neurological (sensory/motor) and neurophysiological readouts [contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs)] by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results MRI+ patients (N = 31; 36.9%) were more impaired compared to MRI− patients (N = 53; 63.1%) based on the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) subscores for upper {MRI+ [median (Interquartile range)]: 4 (4–5); MRI−: 5 (5–5); p < 0.01} and lower extremity [MRI+: 6 (6–7); MRI−: 7 (6–7); p = 0.03] motor dysfunction and the monofilament score [MRI+: 21 (18–23); MRI−: 24 (22-24); p < 0.01]. Both patient groups showed similar extent of cord motion and stenosis. Only in the MRI− group displacement identified patients with pathologic assessments [trunk/lower extremity pin prick score (T/LEPP): AUC = 0.67, p = 0.03; CHEPs: AUC = 0.73, p = 0.01]. Cord motion thresholds: T/LEPP: 1.67 mm (sensitivity 84.6%, specificity 52.5%); CHEPs: 1.96 mm (sensitivity 83.3%, specificity 65.6%). The aSCOR failed to show any relation to the clinical assessments. Discussion These findings affirm cord motion measurements as a promising additional biomarker to improve the clinical workup and to enable timely surgical treatment particularly in MRI− DCM patients. Clinical trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT 02170155.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".