MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119978846 · doi:10.1177/1545968309343213

Management of Spasticity After Spinal Cord Injury: Current Techniques and Future Directions

2009· review· en· W2119978846 on OpenAlexafffund
Sherif M. Elbasiouny, Daniel Moroz, Mohamed Bakr, Vivian K. Mushahwar

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSpasticitySpinal cord injuryMedicineMultiple sclerosisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCerebral palsyStroke (engine)NeuroscienceSpinal cordPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spasticity, resulting in involuntary and sustained contractions of muscles, may evolve in patients with stroke, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, brain injury, and spinal cord injury (SCI). The authors critically review the neural mechanisms that may contribute to spasticity after SCI and assess their likely degree of involvement and relative significance to its pathophysiology. Experimental data from patients and animal models of spasticity as well as computer simulations are evaluated. The current clinical methods used for the management of spasticity and the pharmacological actions of drugs are discussed in relation to their effects on spinal mechanisms. Critical assessment of experimental findings indicates that increased excitability of both motoneurons and interneurons plays a crucial role in pathophysiology of spasticity. New interventions, including forms of spinal electrical stimulation to suppress increased neuronal excitability, may reduce the severity of spasticity and its complications.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations280
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurorehabilitation and neural repairSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207