ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Advancing Precision Medicine in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction models for progression and outcomes in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and critical appraisal.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical and imaging factors associated with paraplegia at presentation in thoracic spinal tuberculosis.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the leading cause of nontraumatic spinal cord dysfunction and remains clinically heterogeneous in presentation and course. This review synthesizes current evidence on predictors of neurological outcomes across conventional prognostic factors (clinical and macrostructural metrics) and quantitative neuroimaging (microstructural metrics), as well as how machine learning (ML) models integrate these predictors into a precision medicine framework to aid in DCM management. We explore evidence on conventional clinical and radiographic factors. Although several signs and scales are associated with clinical outcomes, cross-study inconsistency and the limits of linear models blunt their standalone utility, underscoring the need for multifactorial modelling. We then assess quantitative MRI biomarkers, including diffusion tensor imaging, magnetization transfer, and myelin water imaging, which index axonal integrity and myelination, thereby enriching risk stratification and prediction. Building on these measurements, we examine ML models combining clinical, imaging, and demographic features to predict postoperative outcomes and, increasingly, the natural history of mild DCM. Finally, current gaps and necessary future directions are outlined, including protocol harmonization, prospective multicentre validation, and clinician-patient education to support equitable uptake. Collectively, this review advances in DCM diagnosis and prognosis, highlighting the role of precision medicine tools for personalized patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.