MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084989826 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181f3286d

Emerging Repair, Regeneration, and Translational Research Advances for Spinal Cord Injury

2010· review· en· W2084989826 on OpenAlexaff
Brian K. Kwon, Lali H.S. Sekhon, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Spine Surgery Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialSpinal cord injuryTranslational researchRiluzoleIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisPathologySpinal cordDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations89
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207