MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410929433 · doi:10.1002/jha2.70071

A Comparative Study of the Outcomes of Surgically Versus Non‐Surgically Treated Spinal Disease in Patients With Multiple Myeloma: Northern Ireland's Experience

2025· article· en· W4410929433 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Amber McCalmont, Nagy Darwish, David Donaldson, Eiman Abdel Meguid

Bibliographic record

VenueeJHaem · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsMedicineCohortMultiple myelomaRetrospective cohort studySurgeryCohort studyMalignancyBone marrowBack painInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Multiple myeloma is a haematological malignancy which is characterised by the proliferation of cancerous plasma cells in the bone marrow. The role of spinal surgery in the management of myeloma is debatable. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to compare the outcomes of treatment of patients with myeloma whose spinal disease was managed surgically and/or non‐surgically. Methods A total of 159 patients were reviewed retrospectively. To compare the outcomes of treatment in both cohorts, three outcome measures were selected, including back‐pain reduction, neurological status, and survival duration. In addition, the extent and distribution of vertebral disease was assessed using MRI Whole Spine reports. Results There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients in each cohort reporting back‐pain pretreatment and at the two follow‐up periods ( p > 0.05). Regarding neurological status, 23% of the surgical cohort improved, 53% remained stable and 7% deteriorated. In comparison, the non‐surgical cohort displayed no significant changes in neurological status post‐treatment. The mean duration of survival was significantly longer in the cohort who received surgery (77 vs. 24 months, p = 0.014). However, the mean age of diagnosis was significantly lower in this cohort (59 vs. 71 years, p < 0.001). T12 was the most commonly diseased vertebral level across both cohorts. At the time of diagnosis, the average number of diseased vertebrae per patient was 3.5 in the surgical cohort and 3.6 in the non‐surgical cohort. Conclusion This comparative study has shown that back pain alone should not be an indication for spinal surgery. However, surgical intervention may successfully prevent neurological deterioration. Although surgical intervention is associated with prolonged survival, this may be confounded by demographic variables, such as age. Importantly, most patients displayed multi‐level disease at the time of diagnosis. Trial Registration: The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

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 venueeJHaemSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207