Gunshot Versus Nongunshot Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of gunshot-caused spinal cord injury on acute and rehabilitative care outcome using a case control design. DESIGN: Two groups (i.e., gunshot- vs. nongunshot-caused spinal cord injury) of 212 individuals were matched case-for-case on age (i.e., within 10 yr), education, gender, race, marital status, primary occupation, impairment level, and Model System region. Outcome measures included length of hospital stay, functional status (FIM), treatment charges, and home discharge rates. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ in the length of stay during acute and rehabilitative care, charges during rehabilitative care, or postrehabilitation discharge placement. Several significant between-group differences in treatment procedures were noted (e.g., prevalence of spinal surgery), which may, in part, account for the higher acute-care charges among those persons with nongunshot-caused spinal cord injury. CONCLUSION: Once an individual is stabilized and admitted for rehabilitative care, gunshot etiology of spinal cord injury seems largely unrelated to the initial rehabilitation outcome.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".