MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083598106 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2005.10.0159

Assessment of autonomic dysfunction following spinal cord injury: Rationale for additions to International Standards for Neurological Assessment

2007· article· en· W2083598106 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomic dysreflexiaSpinal cord injuryMedicineHyperhidrosisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cordAutonomic functionOrthostatic vital signsPhysical therapyAutonomic nervous systemAnesthesiaBlood pressurePsychiatryInternal medicineHeart rateHeart rate variability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a preliminary report of the discussion of the joint committee of the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) and the International Spinal Cord Society concerning the development of assessment criteria for general autonomic function testing following spinal cord injury (SCI). Elements of this report were presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the ASIA. To improve the evaluation of neurological function in individuals with SCI and therefore better assess the effects of therapeutic interventions in the future, we are proposing a comprehensive set of definitions of general autonomic nervous system dysfunction following SCI that should be assessed by clinicians. Presently the committee recommends the recognition and assessment of the following conditions: neurogenic shock, cardiac dysrhythmias, orthostatic hypotension, autonomic dysreflexia, temperature dysregulation, and hyperhidrosis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.417 · 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