Clinical Algorithm for Improved Prediction of Ambulation and Patient Stratification after Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent of ambulatory recovery after motor incomplete spinal cord injury (miSCI) differs considerably amongst affected persons. This makes individual outcome prediction difficult and leads to increased within-group variation in clinical trials. The aims of this study on subjects with miSCI were: (1) to rank the strongest single predictors and predictor combinations of later walking capacity; (2) to develop a reliable algorithm for clinical prediction; and (3) to identify subgroups with only limited recovery of walking function. Correlation and logistic regression analyses were performed on a dataset of 90 subjects with tetra- or paraparesis, recruited in a prospective European multicenter study. Eleven measures obtained in the subacute injury period, including clinical examination, tibial somatosensory evoked potentials (tSSEP), and demographic factors, were related to ambulatory outcome (WISCI II, 6minWT) 6 months after injury. The lower extremity motor score (LEMS) alone and in combination was identified as most predictive for later walking capacity in miSCI. Ambulatory outcome of subjects with tetraparesis was correctly predicted for 92% (WISCI II) or 100% (6minWT) of the cases when LEMS was combined with either tSSEP or the ASIA Impairment Scale, respectively. For individuals with paraparesis, prediction was less distinct, mainly due to low prediction rates for individuals with poor walking outcome. A clinical algorithm was generated that allowed for the identification of a subgroup composed of individuals with tetraparesis and poor ambulatory recovery. These data provide evidence that a combination of predictors enables a reliable prediction of walking function and early patient stratification for clinical trials in miSCI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".