Walking-related outcomes for individuals with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injury inform physical therapy practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare patient demographics, inpatient lengths of stay (LOS), and walking-related functional outcomes of individuals with spinal cord injuries (SCIs) of traumatic (TSCI) and non-traumatic (NTSCI) etiologies. To contrast these features between individuals who walked from those who did not walk at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. DESIGN: Prospective observational study; comparisons between TSCI and NTSCI, walkers and non-walkers. Information collected as a pilot project within a provincial SCI informatics strategy. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital specialized for SCIs. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with NTSCI (n = 31) or TSCI (n = 59) admitted to inpatient rehabilitation, 2007-2009. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lower-extremity motor scores (LEMS), spinal cord independence measure version III (SCIM-III) total and mobility subscores, functional independence measure (FIM), Length of Stay (LOS) at inpatient facilities. RESULTS: Groups (NTSCI vs. TSCI) did not differ in the proportion of individuals that achieved "walker" status (SCIM-III mobility indoors (MI) score ≥ 3 at rehab discharge) (P = 0.41, 48.9% overall). Inpatient LOS at both acute care and rehabilitation facilities did not differ between groups; however, TSCI non-walkers had longer inpatient rehabilitation LOS than TSCI walkers. Among walkers, improvement was shown on all three mobility subscores of the SCIM-III between admission and discharge from rehabilitation; highest significance was shown on the SCIM-III MI. Walking status at discharge (SCIM-III MI) was most strongly correlated with LEMS at rehab admission (r = 0.71, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Walking outcomes are comparable among individuals with NTSCI vs. TSCI admitted for specialized SCI rehabilitation. Routine use of SCIM-III mobility items for assessment of walking outcome is recommended for inpatient rehabilitation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".