Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Sir, This letter addresses the concerns brought by Dr. Politis regarding the reviews on acute spinal cord injury (SCI), that were published in The Canadian Veterinary Journal this year (Can Vet J 2010;51:485–492; 598–604). I appreciate the enthusiasm and passion which Dr. Politis demonstrates for the work done at the University of Saskatchewan regarding injury to the central nervous system. It is true, there has been interesting work done at the University of Saskatchewan. Aside from the work of Dr. Politis and his collaborators, other work on spinal cord neurobiology performed at the University of Saskatchewan has been published from the laboratories of Drs. G. Muir, B. Juurlink, E. Schultke, P. Patterson, V. Verge, R. Doucette, among others. It was not the intent to not acknowledge some of this work; it was our intent to address the following: “Substantial advances have been made in SCI research since the publication of veterinary review articles on SCI 10 y ago (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10499720 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10331228). Advances have been made in understanding 1) details of white matter changes occurring after naturally occurring SCI in dogs and cats; 2) the molecular mechanisms involved in failure of neural regeneration within the central nervous system (CNS); 3) potential therapeutics including cellular transplantation therapy; 4) neural plasticity; and 5) prognostic indicators of recovery from SCI in dogs. Given this, we review in 2 parts; 1) basic science perspectives regarding treating and curing SCI, 2) recent studies that shed light on prognosis and recovery from SCI, 3) current thinking on standards of care for dogs with SCI, 4) experimental approaches being investigated in the laboratory setting, and 5) current clinical trials being conducted in veterinary medicine.” From Webb et al, Can Vet J, 2010. Given this objective, journal space limitations, and the input from reviewers, it was important to identify and briefly discuss what we believe are current views and lines of investigation into neurobiology and repair of the spinal cord following its injury. As Dr. Politis likely appreciates, it is impossible to summarize in a review paper all the thoughts and beliefs of SCI neurobiology and all the methods attempted to repair the injured spinal cord. For example, a PubMed search for “spinal cord injury” retrieves nearly 42 000 articles; searching “experimental spinal cord injury” retrieves nearly 3200 references. This does not even begin to capture all of the basic spinal cord neurobiology research that is important to our understanding of how the spinal cord works (important for studies investigating recovery from SCI). It is impossible to cite and review all literature pertaining to SCI. As for Dr. Politis’ belief that high-dose glucocorticoids are beneficial for experimental SCI in rodents, a PubMed search and review of the literature show that there is conflicting evidence to support this notion. Clinical work in humans and experimental work in dogs does not support the use of high-dose corticosteroids for acute traumatic SCI. The use of high-dose corticosteroids has now fallen out of favor as being a “standard of care” in many clinical settings (human and veterinary), and for good reason. High-dose corticosteroids therapy is not without untoward side effects, and given its questionable utility for treating SCI, the benefits do not convincingly outweigh the potential detriments of administering this class of drugs. I thank Dr. Politis for bringing to The Canadian Veterinary Journal readership the work that he has published. Moreover, writing this letter affords me the opportunity to emphasize, again, there is no cure for severe acute traumatic SCI, regardless of who has performed the work, or where the research has been performed. Currently, it is a generally accepted view that a multi-modal approach is what will be required for the effective treatment of spinal cord-injured patients. This approach, too, is awaiting convincing evidence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,033 | 0,049 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,012 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».