Treatment decision-making factors among patients with cervical myelopathy: a discrete-choice experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy is a debilitating condition and current recommendations encourage shared decision-making between surgeons and patients. However, there is limited data on patients' values and preferences for surgical decision making. This study aimed to quantify and compare the relative importance of neurologic function, risk of future surgery, and complications to patients with cervical stenosis. METHODS: Patients with cervical stenosis presenting for surgical evaluation, or post-operative cervical decompression patients, were recruited to participate. Demographic information including modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) score, type of surgery, and complications were recorded and anonymized to study ID. Patients then completed an online discrete-choice experiment survey. In a series of 10 questions, respondents chose between two hypothetical health states defined in terms of five attributes, or "decision factors": (i) upper extremity neurologic function, (ii) lower extremity neurologic function, (iii) risk of cervical spine surgery, (iv) dysphagia, and (v) C5 palsy. Participants were asked to choose which 'life' they preferred, and a regression model was used to quantify the importance of each decision factor. RESULTS: We report three key findings that can aid clinicians in shared decision-making conversations: (i) all patients regard lower extremity neurologic function as the most important decision factor, (ii) dysphagia, a complication, and upper extremity neurologic function are equally important, and (iii) patients who have undergone surgery weigh neurologic function as less important, and complications as more important than patients who have not undergone surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patient preferences for management of degenerative cervical myelopathy are influenced by several considerations including the experience of surgery itself. Communication of benefits and harms associated with surgical and conservative care can optimize shared decision making. Further research should be conducted to evaluate for decisional regret and the impact of complications to inform treatment conversations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".