Outcome Measures for Acute/Subacute Cervical Sensorimotor Complete (AIS-A) Spinal Cord Injury During a Phase 2 Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective treatment after cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is imperative as so many activities of daily living (ADLs) are dependent on functional recovery of arm and hand actions. We focus on defining and comparing neurological and functional endpoints that might be used during acute or subacute Phase 2 clinical trials involving subjects with cervical sensorimotor complete SCI (ASIA Impairment Scale [AIS-A]). For the purposes of this review, the trial would examine the effects of a pharmaceutical small molecule, drug, biologic, or cell transplant on spinal tissue. Thus, neurological improvement is the intended consequence and is most directly measured by assessing neurological impairment (eg, motor aspects of the International Standards Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury [ISNCSCI]). However, changes in neurological function, even if statistically significant, may not be associated with a clear functional impact (ie, a meaningful improvement in individual activity, such as independent self-care ADLs). The challenge is to measure improvement as precisely as possible (change in impairment), but to define a clinically meaningful response in the context of functional improvement (impact on activity limitations). The principal comparisons focused on elements of the ISNCSCI assessment, including upper extremity motor score and motor level. Personal activity capabilities were also examined at various time points. The data suggest that an improvement of 2 or more motor levels after cervical sensorimotor complete SCI may be a clinically meaningful endpoint threshold that could be used for acute and subacute Phase 2 trials with subjects having sensorimotor complete cervical 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".