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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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