Relationship Between Motor Recovery and Independence After Sensorimotor-Complete Cervical Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For therapeutics directed to the injured spinal cord, a change in neurological impairment has been proposed as a relevant acute clinical study end point. However, changes in neurological function, even if statistically significant, may not be associated with a functional impact, such as a meaningful improvement in items within the self-care subscore of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM). OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the functional significance associated with spontaneously recovering upper-extremity motor function after sensorimotor-complete cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: Using the European Multi-center Study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI) data set, a retrospective analysis was undertaken of individuals with cervical sensorimotor-complete SCI (initial motor level, C4-C7). Specifically, changes in upper-extremity motor score (UEMS), motor level, and SCIM (total and self-care subscore) were assessed between approximately 1 and 48 weeks after injury (n = 74). RESULTS: The initial motor level did not significantly influence the total UEMS recovered or number of motor levels recovered. SCIM self-care subscore recovery was significantly greater for those individuals regaining 2 motor levels compared with those recovering only 1 or no motor levels. However, the recovery in the SCIM self-care subscore was not significantly different between individuals recovering only 1 motor level and those individuals who showed no motor-level improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A 2 motor-level improvement indicates a clinically meaningful change and might be considered a primary outcome in acute and subacute interventional trials enrolling individuals with cervical sensorimotor-complete 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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)
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".