Perceived Quality of Life With Spinal Cord Injury: A Comparison Between Emergency Medicine and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the attitudes of health care providers who treat patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and examine whether Emergency Medicine (EM) and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians differ in their judgments about quality of life (QOL) after SCI. DESIGN: Questionnaire survey of PM&R and EM physicians. PARTICIPANTS: Board-certified PM&R and EM physicians listed in the American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and the American College of Emergency Physicians and/or faculty from academic PM&R and EM departments in the United States and Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Evaluating various aspects of perceived QOL if the physician hypothetically sustained an SCI, including impact on leisure activities, social relationships, happiness, meaningful work, satisfying sexual relationships, and overall QOL. RESULTS: A total of 91 EM physicians and 89 PM&R physicians completed the surveys. PM&R physicians were more likely to agree that they would have a better QOL compared with EM physicians, regardless of the level of injury or aspect of life (P < .01 in all cases). Female physicians, regardless of specialty, were more likely to choose a lower level at which they would choose to die, rather than live, if they sustained an SCI (P = .03). Physicians in both groups were more likely to disagree that they would have a high QOL at a lower level of injury if they disagreed at a higher level of injury (P ≤ .02). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of specialty, PM&R and EM physicians have their own personal perceptions of QOL with SCI. PM&R physicians tend to believe that they would have a higher QOL with an SCI compared with EM physicians and likely have a more optimistic view of SCI. Patient care may be improved by interdisciplinary discussion, as evidenced by the disparity exhibited by practitioners in these 2 specialties who care for the same patient population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".