MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080674788 · doi:10.1089/neu.2008.0583

SHORT COMMUNICATION: Levodopa Therapy in Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury

2008· article· en· W2080674788 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Oliver Maric, Björn Zörner, Volker Dietz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Saud UniversityRick Hansen Foundation
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryMedicinePlaceboLevodopaPhysical therapyStroke (engine)Crossover studyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaRehabilitationSpinal cordActivities of daily livingFunctional Independence MeasureRandomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicineParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the influence of levodopa (L-Dopa) on training effects in subjects with spinal cord injury (SCI). A low-dose of L-Dopa per day is known to enhance the effects of physical training after stroke. This is tested here in subjects suffering a SCI. Twelve subacute, incomplete SCI (iSCI) subjects (ASIA C and D) were randomized in a trial with a double-blind, crossover design to receive 6 weeks of L-Dopa (200 mg), followed by 6 weeks of placebo, or vice versa. Outcome measures were ASIA Motor-Score (AMS) reflecting motor recovery; walking ability, assessed by the Walking Index of Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI); and Activities of Daily Living (ADL), as monitored by the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM). Both placebo and L-Dopa, in combination with physiotherapy, produced a significant motor recovery after SCI. The combination of L-Dopa and physiotherapy had no greater effect on the outcome than placebo and physiotherapy. The possible reasons for the different effect of L-Dopa in stroke and iSCI subjects are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.310
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.155 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207