The Impact of Specialized Centers of Care for Spinal Cord Injury on Length of Stay, Complications, and Mortality: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specialized centers of care for spinal cord injury (SCI) were first established in 1944 in England. The objective of these centers is to improve care and neurological recovery of patients suffering from a spinal cord injury. An interdisciplinary group of experts composed of medical and surgical specialists treating patients with SCI formulated the following questions: (1) Is there any evidence to suggest that specialized centers of care in SCI decrease the length of patient stay? and (2) Is there evidence that specialized centers of care for SCI reduce mortality and secondary complications? A systematic review of the current evidence was performed using multiple databases to answer these two specific questions. Two independent reviewers graded each paper using the Black and Downs method. Recommendations were then formulated based on the evidence available and were reviewed by a panel of experts using a modified Delphi approach. Two recommendations were formulated and both received complete agreement from a panel of experts. The first recommendation is "Early transfer of a patient with traumatic SCI to a specialized center of care should be done promptly to decrease overall length of stay." The second recommendation is "Early transfer of patients with traumatic SCI to an integrated multidisciplinary specialized center of care decreases overall mortality, and the number and severity of complications."
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 | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".