Relationship of Neural Axis Level of Injury to Motor Recovery and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with a Thoracolumbar Spinal Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes following traumatic conus medullaris and cauda equina injuries are typically predicted on the basis of the vertebral level of injury. This may be misleading as it is based on the assumption that the conus medullaris terminates at L1 despite its variable location. Our primary objective was to determine whether the neural axis level of injury (the spinal cord, conus medullaris, or cauda equina) as determined with magnetic resonance imaging is better than the vertebral level of injury for prediction of motor improvement in patients with a neurological deficit secondary to a thoracolumbar spinal injury. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with a motor deficit secondary to a thoracolumbar spinal injury, and who met the inclusion criteria, were contacted. Each patient had a magnetic resonance imaging scan that was reviewed by a spine surgeon and a neuroradiologist to determine the termination of the conus medullaris and the neural axis level of injury. Patient demographic data were collected prospectively at the time of admission. Admission and follow-up neurological assessments were performed by formally trained dedicated spine physiotherapists. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were evaluated at a median of 6.2 years (range, 2.7 to 12.3 years) postinjury. The final motor scores differed significantly according to whether the patient had a spinal cord injury (mean, 62.8 points; 95% confidence interval, 55.4 to 70.2), conus medullaris injury (mean, 78.6 points; 95% confidence interval, 70.3 to 86.9), or cauda equina injury (mean, 88.8 points; 95% confidence interval, 78.9 to 98.7) (p = 0.0007). A univariate analysis showed the improvement in the motor scores after the cauda equina injuries (mean, 17.1 points; 95% confidence interval, 8.3 to 25.9) to be significantly greater than that after the spinal cord injuries (mean, 7.7 points; 95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 12.3) (p = 0.03). A multivariate analysis showed that an absence of initial sacral sensation had a negative effect on motor recovery by a factor of 13.2 points (95% confidence interval, 4.2 to 22.1). When compared with classifying our patients on the basis of the neural axis level of injury, reclassifying them on the basis of the vertebral level of injury resulted in a misclassification rate of 33%. CONCLUSIONS: The motor recovery of patients with a thoracolumbar spinal injury and a neurological deficit is affected by both the neural axis level of injury as well as the initial motor score. The results of this study can help the clinician to determine a prognosis for patients who sustain these common injuries provided that he or she evaluates the precise level of neural axis injury utilizing magnetic resonance imaging.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".