MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409441572 · doi:10.17816/ra639870

Interventional treatment of cervical radiculopathy: an observational study

2025· article· en· W4409441572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dmitrii A. Fedorov, В. В. Хиновкер, В. А. Корячкин, K.O. Tutsenko

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical spineMedicineSPINE (molecular biology)SurgeryBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical disc herniation is one of the most common causes of pain in the upper limbs and shoulder girdle, significantly affecting patients’ quality of life, functional capacity, and sleep. AIM: To improve treatment outcomes in patients with cervical radiculopathy through the use of epidural analgesia with glucocorticoids. METHODS: This observational study included 110 patients diagnosed with discogenic cervical radiculopathy. Participants were divided into two groups: the study group (n=50) received interlaminar epidural injections at the cervical spine level with 2% lidocaine (2 mL) and a glucocorticoid (8 mg). The control group (n=60) underwent neurosurgical treatment for discogenic radiculopathy. Pain intensity was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months post-treatment. RESULTS: Baseline mean scores in study group were: NRS 8.04±1.19; ODI 42.56%±2.10; McGill Pain Questionnaire 48.44±5.21. In control group: NRS 8.18±1.27; ODI 42.63%±2.62; McGill Pain Questionnaire 49.20±5.38. By the end of the 6-month follow-up, pain scores in the study group were as follows: NRS 2.64±1.17; ODI 14.28%±2.56; McGill Pain Questionnaire 24.78±3.09. By the end of the 6-month follow-up, pain scores in the control group were as follows: NRS 3.07±1.26; ODI 14.70%±2.47; McGill Pain Questionnaire 25.12±2.66. The p-values for between-group comparisons of pain intensity according to the NRS (p=0.596; p=0.308; p=0.985; p=0.063), ODI (p=0.868; p=0.125; p=0.479; p=0.386), and McGill Pain Questionnaire (p=0.480; p=0.384; p=0.052; p=0.674) at all assessment time points (pre-intervention and at 1, 3, and 6 months) exceeded the significance threshold of 0.050, indicating no statistically significant differences between the interventional and neurosurgical groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that interventional and surgical treatments for cervical radiculopathy yielded comparable effectiveness of the two approaches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia and Acute Pain ManagementSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207