MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiac arrhythmias associated with spinal cord injury

2013· review· en· W1988402919 on OpenAlexaff
Sven Magnus Hector, Tor Biering‐Sørensen, Andrei V. Krassioukov, Fin Biering‐Sørensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Cord Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair Discoveries
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injurySpinal cordParaplegiaAnesthesiaCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT/OBJECTIVES: To review the current literature to reveal the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias and its relation to spinal cord injury (SCI). DATA SOURCE: MEDLINE database, 304 hits, and 32 articles were found to be relevant. The relevant articles all met the inclusion criteria: (1) contained original data (2) on cardiac arrhythmias (3) in humans with (4) traumatic SCI. RESULTS: In the acute phase of SCI (1-14 days after injury) more cranial as well as more severe injuries seemed to increase the incidence of bradycardia. Articles not covering the first 14 days after injury, thus describing the chronic phase of SCI, showed that individuals with SCI did not have a higher incidence of cardiac arrhythmias compared with able-bodied controls. Furthermore, their heart rate did not differ significantly. Penile vibro-stimulation was the procedure investigated most likely to cause bradycardia, which in turn was associated with episodes of autonomic dysreflexia. The incidence of bradycardia was found to be 17-77% for individuals with cervical SCI. For individuals with thoracolumbar SCI, the incidence was 0-13%. CONCLUSION: Bradycardia was commonly seen in the acute stage after SCI as well as during procedures such as penile vibro-stimulation and tracheal suction. These episodes of bradycardia were seen more often in individuals with cervical injuries. Longitudinal studies with continuous electrocardiogram recordings are needed to uncover the true relation between cardiac arrhythmias and 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations47
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Cord MedicineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207