MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404609698 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.oa.23.00166

Nonoperative Care Versus Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

2024· article· en· W4404609698 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Open Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyelopathyAnterior cervical discectomy and fusionSurgeryQuality of life (healthcare)Natural historyArthroplastySpinal cordCervical spineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) occurs when spondylotic changes compress the spinal cord and cause neurologic dysfunction. Because of a lack of comparative data on nonoperative care versus surgery for DCM, it has been difficult to support patients through the shared decision-making process regarding treatment options. Our objective was to synthesize the best available data in a manner that helps clinicians and patients to weigh the differences between nonoperative care and surgery at different ages and disease severity. The 2 patient-centered questions we sought to answer were (1) "am I more likely to experience worsening myelopathy with nonoperative care, or need more surgery if I have my myelopathy treated operatively?" and (2) "how much better will my quality of life be with nonoperative care versus surgery?" Methods: We used a health economic technique, microsimulation, to model head-to-head comparisons of nonoperative care versus surgery for DCM. We incorporated the best available data, modeled patients over a lifetime horizon, used direct comparators, and incorporated uncertainty in both natural history and treatment effect. Results: Patients with mild DCM at baseline who were ≥75 years of age were less likely to neurologically decline under nonoperative care than to undergo a second surgery if the index surgery was an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc arthroplasty (ADR), or posterior cervical decompression and instrumented fusion (PDIF). Using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), our results suggest that surgery for DCM may be superior to nonoperative care. However, for all patients except those with severe DCM who are of middle age or younger (depending on the procedure, ≤50 to ≤60 years of age), the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in QALYs was <0. Conclusions: In most patient groups, neurologic progression with nonoperative management is more likely than the need for additional cervical surgery following operative management, with the exception of patients 75 to 80 years of age and older with mild DCM. Furthermore, on average, surgery for DCM tends to improve quality of life. However, patients with DCM who are older than middle age should be aware that the estimates of the quality-of-life benefit are highly uncertain, with a lower bound of <0. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.330 · 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