Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review of Current Treatment Options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating event often resulting in permanent neurologic deficit. Research has revealed an understanding of mechanisms that occur after the primary injury and contribute to functional loss. By targeting these secondary mechanisms of injury, clinicians may be able to offer improved recovery after SCI. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this review, we highlight advances in the field of SCI by framing three questions: (1) What is the preclinical evidence for the neuroprotective agent riluzole that has allowed this agent to move into clinical trials? (2) What is the preclinical evidence for Rho antagonists that have allowed this group of compounds to move into clinical trials? (3) What is the evidence for early surgical decompression after SCI? METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE-cited articles related to SCI to address these questions. RESULTS: As a result of an improved understanding of the secondary mechanisms of SCI, specific clinical strategies have been established. We highlight three strategies that have made their way from bench to bedside: the sodium-glutamate antagonist riluzole, the Rho inhibitor Cethrin, and early surgical decompression. Each of these modalities is under clinical investigation. We highlight the fundamental science that led to this development. CONCLUSIONS: As our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of SCI improves, we must keep abreast of these discoveries to translate them into therapies that will hopefully benefit patients. We summarize this process of bench to bedside with regard to SCI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".