Refined Assessment of Blood Pressure Instability After Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study determined whether the Autonomic Dysfunction Following Spinal Cord Injury (ADFSCI) questionnaire, a measure of self-reported frequency and severity of symptoms during hypo- and hypertensive episodes, correlates with blood pressure (BP) instability. In addition, test-retest reliability of the ADFSCI questionnaire was assessed. METHODS: Thirty individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) (aged 42±12 years; level of lesion = C3-L1; American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale = A-C; lesion duration = 1 month to 30 years after injury) participated in this study. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was used to assess BP instability. ABPM recorded systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and heart rate at 15-minute intervals during the daytime and 1-hour intervals during the nighttime. Test-retest reliability was performed by completion of the ADFSCI questionnaire on 2 occasions (i.e., 9±4 days in between). RESULTS: Individuals with SCI who self-reported autonomic dysreflexia (AD) episodes showed significantly higher SBP coefficient of variation (CV) (14%) and more AD events (n = 11) than individuals who reported never having AD symptoms (CV = 9%; AD events = 1). Both the number of AD events over the 24-hour period and the BP variability (SBP CV) were significantly related to the patients' self-reported total AD score (rho = 0.522, P = 0.005; rho = 0.584, P = 0.001, respectively) and daily AD frequency (rho = 0.553, P = 0.003; rho = 0.586, P = 0.001, respectively). Conversely, no significant correlations existed between the number of hypotensive events over the 24-hour period and self-reported frequency and severity in the ADFSCI questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that ABPM offers a strong clinical basis for documenting and understanding BP instability, such as AD, and related symptoms in individuals with 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".