We Choose to Call it ‘Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy’: Findings of AO Spine RECODE-DCM, an International and Multi-Stakeholder Partnership to Agree a Standard Unifying Term and Definition for a Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study DesignModified DELPHI Consensus ProcessObjectiveTo agree a single unifying term and definition. Globally, cervical myelopathy caused by degenerative changes to the spine is known by over 11 different names. This inconsistency contributes to many clinical and research challenges, including a lack of awareness.MethodAO Spine RECODE-DCM (Research objectives and Common Data Elements Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy). To determine the index term, a longlist of candidate terms and their rationale, was created using a literature review and interviews. This was shared with the community, to select their preferred terms (248 members (58%) including 149 (60%) surgeons, 45 (18%) other healthcare professionals and 54 (22%) People with DCM or their supporters) and finalized using a consensus meeting. To determine a definition, a medical definition framework was created using inductive thematic analysis of selected International Classification of Disease definitions. Separately, stakeholders submitted their suggested definition which also underwent inductive thematic analysis (317 members (76%), 190 (59%) surgeons, 62 (20%) other healthcare professionals and 72 (23%) persons living with DCM or their supporters). Using this definition framework, a working definition was created based on submitted content, and finalized using consensus meetings.ResultsDegenerative Cervical Myelopathy was selected as the unifying term, defined in short, as a progressive spinal cord injury caused by narrowing of the cervical spinal canalConclusionA consistent term and definition can support education and research initiatives. This was selected using a structured and iterative methodology, which may serve as an exemplar for others in the future.
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 | 0.054 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".