Contemporary Cardiovascular Concerns after Spinal Cord Injury: Mechanisms, Maladaptations, and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular (CV) issues after spinal cord injury (SCI) are of paramount importance considering they are the leading cause of death in this population. Disruption of autonomic pathways leads to a highly unstable CV system, with impaired blood pressure (BP) and heart rate regulation. In addition to low resting BP, on a daily basis the majority of those with SCI suffer from transient episodes of aberrantly low and high BP (termed orthostatic hypotension and autonomic dysreflexia, respectively). In fact, autonomic issues, including resolution of autonomic dysreflexia, are frequently ranked by individuals with high-level SCI to be of greater priority than walking again. Owing to a combination of these autonomic disturbances and a myriad of lifestyle factors, the pernicious process of CV disease is accelerated post-SCI. Unfortunately, these secondary consequences of SCI are only beginning to receive appropriate clinical attention. Immediately after high-level SCI, major CV abnormalities present in the form of neurogenic shock. After subsiding, new issues related to BP instability arise, including orthostatic hypotension and autonomic dysreflexia. This review describes autonomic control over the CV system before injury and the mechanisms underlying CV abnormalities post-SCI, while also detailing the end-organ consequences, including those of the heart, as well as the systemic and cerebral vasculature. The tertiary impact of CV dysfunction will also be discussed, such as the potential impediment of rehabilitation, and impaired cognitive function. In the recent past, our understanding of autonomic dysfunctions post-SCI has been greatly enhanced; however, it is vital to further develop our understanding of the long-term consequences of these conditions, which will equip us to better manage CV disease morbidity and mortality in this population.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".