Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Awareness in Primary Care: UK National Cross-Sectional Survey of General Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a progressive neurological condition, characterized by spinal cord injury secondary to degenerative changes in the spine. Misdiagnosis in primary care forms part of a complex picture leading to an average diagnostic delay of 2 years. This leads to potentially preventable and permanent disability. A lack of awareness secondary to deficits in postgraduate education may contribute to these delays. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the awareness of DCM in the setting of general practice. METHODS: General practitioners completed a quantitative web-based cross-sectional questionnaire. The 17-item questionnaire captured data regarding demographics, subjective awareness, and objective knowledge. The questionnaire was disseminated via professional networks, including via practice managers and senior practice partners. Incentivization was provided via a bespoke DCM fact sheet for those that completed the survey. RESULTS: A total of 54 general practitioners representing all 4 UK nations responded to the survey. General practitioners most commonly self-assessed that they had "limited awareness" of DCM (n=24, 51%). General practitioners felt most commonly "moderately able" to recognize a case of DCM (n=21, 46%). In total, 13% (n=6) of respondents reported that they would not be at all able to recognize a patient with DCM. Respondents most commonly reported that they were "moderately confident" in their ability to triage a patient with DCM (n=19, 41%). A quarter of respondents reported no prior introduction to DCM throughout their medical training (n=13, 25%). The mean score for knowledge-based questions was 42.6% (SD 3.96%) with the lowest performance observed in patient demographic and clinical recognition items. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners lack confidence in the recognition and management of DCM. These findings are consistent with the diagnostic delays previously described in the literature at the primary care level. Further work to develop and implement educational interventions to general practitioner practices is a crucial step to improving patient outcomes in DCM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".