MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414496054 · doi:10.7705/biomedica.7685

Spinal tuberculosis, pathophysiology and radiological presentation, three case reports

2025· article· en· W4414496054 on OpenAlexaff
V. Ross, Bibiana Pinzón, Diana María Palacios-Ortiz, Zandra Rocío De La Rosa-Noriega, Jana Abi Rafeh, Leonardo F. Jurado

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomédica · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiological weaponDifferential diagnosisMagnetic resonance imagingTuberculosisSpondylodiscitisEtiologyRadiographyBack pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prompt diagnosis and treatment of spinal tuberculosis are key in preventing its neurological and physical sequelae. This affection, also known as Pott's disease, should be considered a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with unexplained back pain that can lead to neurological symptoms and eventually paraplegia. Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the etiological agent of tuberculosis, spreads from the lungs to the spine via venous or arterial pathways, causing lesions apparent upon imaging. Radiological findings include osseous destruction, disk collapse, abscess formation, and spinal deformity. While magnetic resonance is considered the most sensitive and specific imaging modality to establish a diagnosis, plain radiographs and computed tomography can provide useful information. This manuscript discusses three Colombian cases of spinal tuberculosis with the goal of increasing familiarity regarding the pathophysiology, clinical and radiological manifestations, and differential diagnosis of this rare but potentially devastating disease.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designCase report
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 venueBiomédicaSame topicInfectious Diseases and TuberculosisFrench-language works237,207