Quality of life in patients with spinal cord injury-basic issues, assessment, and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord injury (SCI) often causes severe disabilities. The degree of functional impairment strongly depends on the level and completeness of lesion (tetraplegic, paraplegic). But evaluation of outcomes also needs to consider the broader concept of health-related quality of the life (HRQL) for SCI patients. A multinational group of clinicians and researchers assessed this concept and reviewed the available instruments for measurement of quality of life in this group of patients. TIME POINTS: Phase I is in the acute clinic; phase II during rehabilitation; phase III after discharge home. Annual follow-up investigations should be maintained. The phase of initial care (phase 0) is important for prognosis and should, therefore, be part of the documentation. INSTRUMENTS: Criteria used to evaluate current QoL measures: reliability, validity, responsiveness, availability of translations, application in SCI patients, existing population norms. Several specific instruments or subscales exist for the following domains: physical and psychological functioning, pain, and handicap. Well-known generic measures of HRQL also have been applied to SCI patients, and a disease-specific instrument has been developed (SCIQL-23). A variety of subjective quality of life measures were evaluated as well. GROUP CONSENSUS/GUIDELINE: Prior to discharge from rehabilitation, the group suggested the use of the Functional Independence Measure, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and a Visual Analogue Scale for pain. Following discharge from the acute clinic, the SF-36, the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique, the Quality of Well-being Scale, or the Life Satisfaction questionnaire were proposed. However, the evidence supporting the use of these instruments is sparse.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".