MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403117862 · doi:10.3171/2024.6.spine24430

Outcome prediction following lumbar disc surgery: a longitudinal study of outcome trajectories, prognostic factors, and risk models

2024· article· en· W4403117862 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey J. Hébert, Shuaijin Wang, Niels Wedderkopp, Christopher Small, Edward Abraham, Najmedden Attabib, Nathan Evaniew, Jérôme Paquet, Raphaële Charest-Morin, Supriya Singh, Michael H. Weber, Adrienne Kelly, Stephen Kingwell, Eric J. Crawford, Andrew Nataraj, Travis Marion, Bernard LaRue, Henry Ahn, Hamilton Hall, Charles G. Fisher, Y. Raja Rampersaud, Nicolas Dea, C. Scott Bailey, Neil Manson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreOttawa HospitalNOSM UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreSault Area HospitalHorizon Health NetworkLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityUniversité LavalUniversity of New BrunswickDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreUniversity of CalgaryMontreal General HospitalCanada East Spine Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOswestry Disability IndexPhysical therapyOutcome (game theory)Logistic regressionBack painLow back painRating scaleLumbarDiscectomySurgeryInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to 1) describe the 2-year postoperative trajectories of leg pain and overall clinical outcome after surgery for radiculopathy, 2) identify the preoperative prognostic factors that predict trajectories representing poor clinical outcomes, and 3) develop and internally validate multivariable prognostic models to assist with clinical decision-making. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network who were diagnosed with lumbar disc pathology and radiculopathy and had undergone lumbar discectomy at one of 18 spine centers. Potential outcome predictors included preoperative demographic, health-related, and clinical prognostic factors. Clinical outcomes were 1) 2-year univariable latent trajectories of leg pain intensity (numeric pain rating scale) and 2) overall outcomes comprising multivariable trajectories showing the combined postoperative courses of leg and back pain intensity (numeric pain rating scale) together with pain-related disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Each outcome model identified a subgroup of patients classified as experiencing a poor outcome based on minimal change in their clinical status after surgery. Multivariable risk model performance and internal validity were evaluated with discrimination and calibration statistics based on bootstrap shrinkage with 500 resamplings. RESULTS: The authors included data from 1142 patients (47.6% female). The trajectory models identified 3 subgroups based on the patients' postoperative courses of pain or disability: 88.6% of patients in the leg pain model and 71.9% in the overall outcome model experienced a good-to-excellent outcome. The models classified 11.4% (leg pain outcome) and 28.2% (overall outcome) of patients as experiencing a poor clinical outcome, which was defined as minimal improvement in pain or disability after surgery. Eleven individual demographic, health, and clinical factors predicted patients' poor leg pain and overall outcomes. The performance of the multivariable risk model for leg pain was inadequate, while the overall outcome model had acceptable discrimination, calibration, and internal validity for predicting a poor surgical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lumbar radiculopathy experience heterogeneous postoperative trajectories of pain and disability after lumbar discectomy. Individual preoperative factors are associated with postoperative outcomes and can be combined within a multivariable risk model to predict overall patient outcome. These results may inform clinical practice but require external validation before confident clinical implementation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207