Emerging Repair, Regeneration, and Translational Research Advances for Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Literature review of basic scientific and clinical research in spinal cord injury (SCI). Objective. To provide physicians with an overview of the neurobiologic challenges of SCI, the current status of investigation for novel therapies that have been translated to human clinical trials, and the preclinical, scientific basis for each of these therapies. Summary of Background Data. An abundance of recent scientific and clinical research activity has revealed numerous insights into the neurobiology of SCI, and has generated an abundance of potential therapies. An increasing number of such therapies are being translated into human SCI trials. Clinicians who attend to SCI patients are increasingly asked about potential treatments and clinical trials. Methods. Published data review of novel treatments that are either currently in human clinical trials for acute SCI or about to initiate clinical evaluation. Results. A number of treatments have bridged the “translational gap” and are currently either in the midst of human SCI trials, or are about to begin such clinical evaluation. These include minocycline, Cethrin, anti-Nogo antibodies, systemic hypothermia, Riluzole, magnesium chloride in polyethylene glycol, and human embryonic stem cell derived oligodendrocyte progenitors. A systematic review of the preclinical literature on these specific therapies reveals promising results in a variety of different SCI injury models. Conclusion. The SCI community is encouraged by the progression of novel therapies from “bench to bedside” and the initiation of clinical trials for a number of different treatments. The task of clinical evaluation, however, is substantial, and many years will be required before the actual efficacy of the treatments currently in evaluation will be determined. An increasing number of experimental therapies are being translated into human spinal cord injury trials. Clinicians who attend to patients with spinal cord injury are increasingly asked about these potential treatments. This review provides a description of the biologic rationale behind emerging therapies, and an update on the status of their clinical evaluation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".