MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985280561 · doi:10.4045/tidsskr.10.0859

Traumatic spinal cord injuries – incidence, mechanisms and course

2012· review· no· W1985280561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen Merete Hagen, Tiina Rekand, Nils Erik Gilhus, Marit Grønning

Bibliographic record

VenueTidsskrift for Den norske legeforening · 2012
Typereview
Languageno
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryIncidence (geometry)EpidemiologySpinal cordPopulationInjury preventionPoison controlDemographyPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of this article is to provide an overview of demography, neurological level of injury, extent of lesion, incidence, prevalence, injury mechanisms as well as lethality and causes of death associated with traumatic spinal cord injuries. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A literature search was carried out in PubMed, with the search words "traumatic spinal cord injury"/"traumatic spinal cord injuries" together with "epidemiology", and "spinal cord injury"/"spinal cord injuries" together with "epidemiology". RESULTS: The reported annual incidence of traumatic spinal cord injuries varies from 2.3 per million in a study from Canada to 83 per million in Alaska. The prevalence is given as ranging from 236 per million in India to 1800 per million in the USA. The average age at the time of injury varies from 26.8 years in Turkey to 55.5 years in the USA. The ratio of men to women varies from 0.9 in Taiwan to 12.0 in Nigeria. The most frequent cause of injury is traffic accidents, followed by falls, violence and sports/leisure activity incidents. Patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries have a higher lethality than the normal population. The most frequent causes of death today are airway problems, heart disease and suicide. INTERPRETATION: There are large geographical differences in reported incidence, prevalence and lethality. This is attributable to differences in definition, inclusion, classification and patient identification procedures in the various studies, together with geographical and cultural differences and differences in prehospital and hospital treatment.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.324 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations72
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTidsskrift for Den norske legeforeningSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207