Acute Cervical Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: MR Imaging Findings Correlated with Neurologic Outcome—Prospective Study with 100 Consecutive Patients<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate whether quantitative and qualitative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging assessments after spinal cord injury (SCI) correlate with patient neurologic status and are predictive of outcome at long-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 100 patients (79 male, 21 female; mean age, 45 years; age range, 17-96 years) with traumatic cervical SCI. Ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained. The American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score was used as the outcome measure at admission and follow-up. The ASIA impairment scale was used to classify patients according to injury severity. Three quantitative (maximum spinal cord compression [MSCC], maximum canal compromise [MCC], and lesion length) and six qualitative (intramedullary hemorrhage, edema, cord swelling, soft-tissue injury [STI], canal stenosis, and disk herniation) imaging parameters were studied. Data were analyzed by using the Fisher exact test, the Mantel-Haenszel chi(2) test, analysis of variance, analysis of covariance, and stepwise multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Patients with complete motor and sensory SCIs had more substantial MCC (P=.005), MSCC (P=.002), and lesion length (P=.005) than did patients with incomplete SCIs and those with no SCIs. Patients with complete SCIs also had higher frequencies of hemorrhage (P<.001), edema (P<.001), cord swelling (P=.001), stenosis (P=.01), and STI (P=.001). MCC (P=.012), MSCC (P=.014), and cord swelling (P<.001) correlated with baseline ASIA motor scores. MSCC (P=.028), hemorrhage (P<.001), and cord swelling (P=.029) were predictive of the neurologic outcome at follow-up. Hemorrhage (P<.001) and cord swelling (P=.002) correlated significantly with follow-up ASIA score after controlling for the baseline neurologic assessment. CONCLUSION: MSCC, spinal cord hemorrhage, and cord swelling are associated with a poor prognosis for neurologic recovery. Extent of MSCC is more reliable than presence of canal stenosis for predicting the neurologic outcome after 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".