MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982368319 · doi:10.1161/hs0102.101923

Selective Vulnerability of the Lumbosacral Spinal Cord After Cardiac Arrest and Hypotension

2002· article· en· W1982368319 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Duggal, B. Lach

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumbosacral jointSpinal cordMyelopathyAnesthesiaLumbarCordNeuropathologyLumbar Spinal CordIschemiaSpinal cord injuryCardiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is generally accepted that the gray matter in the watershed area of the midthoracic level of the spinal cord is the ischemic watershed zone of the spinal cord. We performed a retrospective study to reevaluate the frequency and distribution of spinal cord injury after a global ischemic event. METHODS: Clinical files and neuropathology specimens of all adult patients with either a well-documented cardiac arrest or a severe hypotensive episode, as well as pathologically confirmed ischemic encephalopathy and/or myelopathy, were reviewed by an independent reviewer. RESULTS: Among 145 cases satisfying selection criteria, ischemic myelopathy was found in 46% of patients dying after either a cardiac arrest or a severe hypotensive episode. Among the patients with myelopathy, predominant involvement of the lumbosacral level with relative sparing of thoracic levels was observed in >95% of cardiac arrest and hypotensive patients. None of the examined patients developed neuronal necrosis limited to the thoracic level only. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate a greater vulnerability of neurons in the lumbar or lumbosacral spinal cord to ischemia than other levels of the spinal cord.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations128
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207