MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099359509 · doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3102007

Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials

2006· review· en· W2099359509 on OpenAlexafffund
James W. Fawcett, Armin Curt, John D. Steeves, W P Coleman, Mark H. Tuszynski, Daniel P. Lammertse, Perry F. Bartlett, Andrew R. Blight, V. Dietz, John F. Ditunno, Bruce H. Dobkin, Leif A. Havton, P H Ellaway, Michael G. Fehlings, Alain Privat, Robert G. Grossman, James D. Guest, Naomi Kleitman, Masaya Nakamura, Manuel Gaviria, D Short

Bibliographic record

VenueSpinal Cord · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInternational Collaboration on Repair DiscoveriesMinistry of Education, IndiaSpinalCure AustraliaParalyzed Veterans of AmericaChristopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryClinical trialSpontaneous recoveryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cordParalysisMotor functionRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.541
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.550
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5410.550
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.031
Bibliometrics0.0140.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0150.008
Open science0.0150.007
Research integrity0.0250.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.010

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 head0.794
GPT teacher head0.672
Teacher spread0.122 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations877
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSpinal CordSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207