Changes in Activity After a Complete Spinal Cord Injury as Measured by the Spinal Cord Independence Measure II (SCIM II)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of rehabilitation efficacy in spinal cord injury (SCI) should be based on a combination of neurological and functional outcome measures. The Spinal Cord Independence Measure II (SCIM II) is an independence scale that was specifically developed for subjects with SCI. However, little is know about the changes in SCIM II scores during and after rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate changes in functional recovery during the first year after a complete SCI as measured by the SCIM II compared with neurological recovery (motor scores according to the American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA]). METHODS: SCIM II data and ASIA motor scores 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after injury (derived from the database of the European Multicenter Study of Human Spinal Cord Injury) of 64 patients with complete paraplegia and 36 patients with complete quadriplegia were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients with complete paraplegia, the SCIM II total score improved significantly during the 1-year follow-up, even after discharge from rehabilitation. In contrast, the ASIA motor scores showed little recovery. In patients with quadriplegia, functional and motor recovery developed in parallel during rehabilitation and after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The SCIM II is responsive to functional changes in patients with a persistent motor complete SCI. It is clinically useful for monitoring functional improvement during rehabilitation and after discharge. The SCIM II and the clinical examination based on the ASIA protocol are of complementary value and separately describe changes in independence and sensorimotor deficits in SCI patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".