Use of an Expert Panel for Symptomatic Patients With Grade I Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The appropriate utilization of lumbar fusion when performing laminectomy for lumbar spondylolisthesis is uncertain. The objective was to determine whether the use of a surgical expert review panel recommending fusion might improve patient selection, possibly reducing surgical failures. METHODS: Randomized clinical trial of patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar stenosis with spondylolisthesis enrolled from 14 North American hospitals was conducted with patients randomized to receive an expert panel review of their case or not. Spinal expert review consisted of 10 to 15 surgeons' review of patient images and clinical data with voting on the appropriateness of fusion. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients who failed to improve their 1-year EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) score. Secondary analysis focused on whether a supermajority (>80% consensus) of spinal experts recommending fusion might reduce operative failures. The trial (SLIP II) was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03570801). RESULTS: Between November 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022, 663 patients were randomized (mean age 65.6 years; [59.6%] female) and 523 of 574 patients (91%; who had surgery) were included in the 1-year analysis. Final follow-up was on March 5, 2024. Among the 523 patients, 270 underwent review and 253 had no review. The overall surgical failure rate (using EQ-5D) did not differ between the review groups, 16.7% vs 17.4% (no review: difference 0.7%; 95% CI, -8% to 6%; P = .92). However, with supermajority recommending fusion, the proportion of patients who failed to improve EQ-5D score after surgery was 8.4% (review group) vs 18.4% (nonreview group: difference 10%; 95% CI, 2%-18%; P = .03). Supermajority recommendation for fusion was associated with 0.296 vs 0.240 EQ-5D change in the nonreview group (difference 0.056, 95% CI, 0.002-0.108; P = .04). CONCLUSION: Among patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, an expert panel review with a supermajority favoring fusion was associated with a greater improvement in health-related quality of life and fewer surgical failures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".