MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

International standards to document remaining autonomic function after spinal cord injury

2012· article· en· W2173731618 on OpenAlexaff
Andrei V. Krassioukov, Fin Biering‐Sørensen, William H. Donovan, Michael Kennelly, Steven Kirshblum, Klaus Krogh, Marca Sipski Alexander, Lawrence C. Vogel, Jill M. Wecht

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Cord Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineSpinal cord injuryAutonomic functionAutonomic dysreflexiaPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cordBlood pressureInternal medicinePathologyHeart rateHeart rate variabilityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first guideline describing the International Standards to document remaining Autonomic Function after Spinal Cord Injury (ISAFSCI). This guideline should be used as an adjunct to the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) including the ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS), which documents the neurological examination of individuals with SCI. The Autonomic Standards Assessment Form is recommended to be completed during the evaluation of individuals with SCI, but is not a part of the ISNCSCI. A web-based training course (Autonomic Standards Training E Program (ASTeP)) is available to assist clinicians with understanding autonomic dysfunctions following SCI and with completion of the Autonomic Standards Assessment Form (www.ASIAlearningcenter.com).

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.008

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.387 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
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

Citations225
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Cord MedicineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207