The Health and Life Priorities of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Systematic reviewConsensus signal: Systematic review
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.266
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.780
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Determining the priorities of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) can assist in choosing research priorities that will ultimately improve their quality of life. This systematic review examined studies that directly surveyed people with SCI to ascertain their health priorities and life domains of importance. Twenty-four studies (a combined sample of 5262 subjects) that met the inclusion criteria were identified using electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO). The questionnaire methods and domains of importance were reviewed and described. While the questionnaires varied across studies, a consistent set of priorities emerged. Functional recovery priorities were identified for the following areas: motor function (including arm/hand function for individuals with tetraplegia, and mobility for individuals with paraplegia), bowel, bladder, and sexual function. In addition, health, as well as relationships, emerged as important life domains. The information from this study, which identified the priorities and domains of importance for individuals with SCI, may be useful for informing health care and research agenda-setting activities.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Neurotrauma
- Topic
- Spinal Cord Injury Research
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- Western UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Keywords
- CINAHLTetraplegiaPsycINFOSpinal cord injuryMEDLINEParaplegiaMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)International Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologyPsychologyPhysical therapyNursingSpinal cordPsychological interventionPsychiatry
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes