A Systematic Review of Intensive Cardiopulmonary Management after Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensive cardiopulmonary management is frequently undertaken in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), particularly due to the occurrence of neurogenic shock and ventilatory insufficiency and in an attempt to reduce secondary injury. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to examine the evidence that intensive care management improves outcome after SCI and to attempt to define key parameters for cardiopulmonary support/resuscitation. We review the literature in five areas: management of SCI patients in specialized centers, risk in SCI patients of cardiopulmonary complications, parameters for blood pressure and oxygenation/ventilation support following SCI, risk factors for cardiopulmonary insufficiency requiring ICU care after SCI, and preventative strategies to reduce the risks of cardiopulmonary complications in SCI patients. The literature supports that, in light of the significant incidence of cardiorespiratory complications, SCI patients should be managed in a monitored special care unit. There is weak evidence supporting the maintenance of MAP >85 mmHg for a period extending up to 1 week following 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".