The Evolution of Walking-Related Outcomes Over the First 12 Weeks of Rehabilitation for Incomplete Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: The Multicenter Randomized Spinal Cord Injury Locomotor Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Spinal Cord Injury Locomotor Trial (SCILT) compared 12 weeks of step training with body weight support on a treadmill (BWSTT) that included overground practice to a defined but more conventional overground mobility intervention (CONT) in patients with incomplete traumatic SCI within 8 weeks of onset. No previous studies have reported walking-related outcomes during rehabilitation. METHODS: This single-blinded, randomized trial entered 107 American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) C and D patients and 38 ASIA B patients with lesions between C5 and L3 who were unable to walk on admission for rehabilitation. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM-L) for walking, 15-m walking speed, and lower extremity motor score (LEMS) were collected every 2 weeks. RESULTS: No significant differences were found at entry and during the treatment phase (12-week mean FIM-L = 5, velocity = 0.8 m/s, LEMS = 35, distance walked in 6 min = 250 m). Combining the 2 arms, a FIM-L >or= 4 was achieved in < 10% of ASIA B patients, 92% of ASIA C patients, and all of ASIA D patients. Walking speed of >or= 0.6 m/s correlated with a LEMS near 40 or higher. CONCLUSIONS: Few ASIA B and most ASIA C and D patients achieved functional walking ability by the end of 12 weeks of BWSTT and CONT, consistent with the primary outcome data at 6 months. Walking-related measures assessed at 2-week intervals reveal that time after SCI is an important variable for entering patients into a trial with mobility outcomes. By about 6 weeks after entry, most patients who will recover have improved their FIM-L to >3 and are improving in walking speed. Future trials may reduce the number needed to treat by entering patients with FIM-L < 4 at > 8 weeks after onset if still graded ASIA B and at > 12 weeks if still ASIA C.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".