Outcome of Prospective Evaluation of Elderly Deformity Surgery (PEEDS): A Multicenter International Study on Patients Over 60 years of Age Undergoing Multilevel Spinal Deformity Corrections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design Prospective multicenter observational study. Objectives Spinal deformity has a significant impact on health in elderly patients. The appropriate use of multilevel fusion surgery in elderly patients requires information regarding the expected outcomes and complications. Methods Patients ≥60 years undergoing ≥5 levels of spinal fusion from 12 international centers were enrolled and followed up to 5 years post-operatively. Results 219 of 229 enrolled patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 67.5 (range 60-83) years with 80.4% female patients. The mean changes (95% CI) of the subtotal and total SRS-22r scores from baseline to 5-year follow up were 0.88 (0.76;1.00) and 0.90 (0.78;1.02), respectively ( P < 0.001). Comparable improvements were observed in the Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Rating Scale and EQ-5D with maximum improvement noted at 1 year and maintained at the 2- and 5-year follow-ups. Overall, there were 244 adverse events reported in 124 patients during the 2-year follow-up period, and further 25 adverse events reported in 20 patients between 2 and 5 years. Conclusion Multilevel reconstructive surgery in elderly patients with spinal deformity is associated with significant improvement in self-reported outcomes despite a relatively high rate of adverse events. The results of this study provide important information regarding the expected risks and benefits of surgery in these patients, empowering patients and physicians to make informed choices regarding care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".