MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409119497 · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2025.0496

Operative vs Nonoperative Treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis at 8-Year Follow-Up

2025· article· en· W4409119497 on OpenAlexaff
Justin S. Smith, Michael P. Kelly, Elizabeth L. Yanik, Christine R. Baldus, Vy Pham, David Ben‐Israel, Jon D. Lurie, Charles C. Edwards, Steven D. Glassman, Lawrence G. Lenke, Jacob M. Buchowski, Leah Y. Carreon, Charles H. Crawford, Stephen J. Lewis, Tyler R. Koski, Virginie Lafage, Munish Kumar Gupta, Han Jo Kim, Christopher P. Ames, Shay Bess, Frank Schwab, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Keith H. Bridwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOswestry Disability IndexObservational studyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryLumbarScoliosisQuality of life (healthcare)Low back painInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Long-term follow-up studies of operative and nonoperative treatment of adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) are needed to assess benefits and durability. Objective: To assess the durability of treatment outcomes for operative vs nonoperative treatment of ASLS. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis 1 (ASLS-1) study was a multicenter, prospective study with randomized and observational cohorts designed to assess operative vs nonoperative ASLS treatment. Operative and nonoperative patients were compared using as-treated analysis of combined randomized and observational cohorts. Patients with ASLS aged 40 to 80 years were enrolled at 9 centers in North America. Data were analyzed from November 2023 to July 2024. Interventions: Operative and nonoperative treatment approaches. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes measures were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Scoliosis Research Society 22 (SRS-22) at 2-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up. Results: The 286 enrolled patients (104 in the nonoperative group: median [IQR] age, 61.9 [54.4-68.8] years; 97 female [93%]; 182 in the operative group: median [IQR] age, 60.2 [53.5-66.6] years; 161 female [88%]) had follow-up rates at 2, 5, and 8 years of 90% (256 of 286), 70% (199 of 286), and 72% (205 of 286), respectively. At 2 years, compared with those in the nonoperative group, patients in the operative group had better ODI (mean difference = -12.98; 95% CI, -16.08 to -9.88; P < .001) and SRS-22 (mean difference = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70; P < .001) scores, with mean differences exceeding the minimal detectable measurement difference (MDMD) for ODI (7) and SRS-22 (0.4). Mean differences at 5 years (ODI = -11.25; 95% CI, -15.20 to 7.31; P <.001; SRS-22 = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.72; P < .001) and 8 years (ODI = -14.29; 95% CI, -17.81 to -10.78; P <.001; SRS-22 = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.90; P < .001) remained as favorable as at 2 years without evidence of degradation. The treatment-related serious adverse event (SAE) incidence rates for operative patients at 2, 2 to 5, and 5 to 8 years were 22.24, 9.08, and 8.02 per 100 person-years, respectively. At 8 years, operative patients with 1 treatment-related SAE still had significant improvement, with mean treatment differences that exceeded MDMD (ODI = -9.49; 95% CI, -14.23 to -4.74; P < .001; SRS-22 = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this nonrandomized clinical trial reveal that, on average, operative treatment for ASLS provided significantly greater clinical improvement than nonoperative treatment at 2-, 5- and 8-year follow-up, with no evidence of deterioration. Operative patients with a treatment-related SAE still maintained greater improvement than nonoperative patients. These findings suggest long-term durability of surgical treatment for ASLS and may prove useful for patient management and counseling. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00854828.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA SurgerySame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207