Gender differences in spine surgery for degenerative lumbar disease: prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite efforts toward achieving gender-based equality in clinical trial enrollment, females are frequently underrepresented and gender-specific data analysis is lacking. Identifying and addressing gender bias in medical decision-making and outcome reporting may facilitate more equitable healthcare delivery. This study aimed to determine if gender differences exist in the clinical evaluation and surgical management of patients with degenerative lumbar conditions. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing spinal surgery for degenerative lumbar conditions (disc herniation [DH], spinal canal stenosis [SCS], and degenerative spondylolisthesis [DS]) were prospectively enrolled across 16 tertiary academic centers. Outcome domains included pain, disability, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), expectations of surgery, and satisfaction with surgical outcome. Covariates pertaining to the preoperative use of healthcare resources, diagnostic testing, and visits to healthcare providers were compared between genders before and after propensity score matching for 13 baseline demographic and procedural variables. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 5038 patients (2396 female, 2642 male) with degenerative spinal pathologies including SCS (40.2%), DS (33.2%), and DH (26.6%). Surgical treatment effect was similar for both genders. For all conditions, female patients had worse pre- and postoperative pain, disability, and HRQOL. Significant gender differences were identified for marital status, education, employment status, exercise activities, and disability claims. Female patients were more likely to use select medications, diagnostic imaging tests, and nonsurgical therapeutic interventions, and access various healthcare providers. Findings were similar following post hoc propensity score matching. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study, male and female patients benefitted similarly from surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease. However, female patients had worse preoperative clinical assessment scores and were more likely to use select healthcare resources.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".