Cardiovascular Function in Individuals with Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a clear relationship between the neurological level of spinal cord injury (SCI) and cardiovascular function; however, the relationship between completeness of injury and cardiovascular function is less straightforward. Traditionally completeness of injury has referred to neurological (motor/sensory) completeness. Recently, a number of studies have started to investigate autonomic completeness of injury. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationships between cardiovascular function and neurological and autonomic completeness of injury. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in November 2012 through MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. Twenty-one studies were included in this review. RESULTS: In acute SCI, there is no clear consensus about whether resting heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), or prevalence of BP abnormalities differs between neurologically complete and incomplete SCI. In chronic SCI, there is limited evidence that there is less prevalence of autonomic dysreflexia and improved heart rate variability in response to provocation in neurologically incomplete SCI; however, resting HR and BP appear similar between neurologically complete and incomplete SCI. There is growing evidence that BP and HR at rest and during orthostasis is enhanced in autonomically incomplete SCI. Numerous studies report that neurological completeness does not agree with autonomic completeness of injury. CONCLUSIONS: For acute SCI, there is no clear consensus whether cardiovascular function differs between complete and incomplete. For chronic SCI, the studies to date suggest that autonomic completeness of SCI is more strongly related to cardiovascular function than neurological completeness of injury. Thus, clinicians and scientists should account for autonomic completeness of injury when assessing cardiovascular function in 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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".