The Impact of Age on Mortality, Impairment, and Disability among Adults with Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the potential effects of age on mortality, impairment, and disability among individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury [(SCI), we examined these issues using a large, prospectively accrued clinical database. This study includes all patients who were enrolled in the Third National Spinal Cord Injury Study (NASCIS 3). Motor, sensory, and pain outcomes were assessed using NASCIS scores. Functional outcome was evaluated using the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Data analyses included regression models adjusted for major potential confounders (i.e., sex, ethnicity, Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score, blood alcohol concentration on admission, drug protocol, cause, and level and severity of SCI). Mortality rates among older people (> or =65 years) were significantly greater than those of younger individuals at 6 weeks, at 6 months, and at 1 year following SCI (38.6% versus 3.1%; p < 0.0001). Among survivors, age was not significantly correlated with motor recovery or change in pain scores in the acute and chronic stages after SCI based on regression analyses adjusted for major confounders. However, older individuals experienced greater functional deficit (based on FIM scores) than younger individuals, despite experiencing similar rates of sensorimotor recovery (based on NASCIS scores). Our results suggest that older individuals have a substantially increased mortality rate during the first year following traumatic SCI in comparison with younger patients. Among survivors, the potential of older patients with SCI to neurologically improve within the first year post-injury does not appear to translate into similar functional recovery compared to that seen in younger individuals. Given this fact, rehabilitation protocols that are more focused on functional recovery may reduce disability among older people with acute traumatic 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".