Optimal Timing of Surgical Decompression for Acute Traumatic Central Cord Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS) is an incomplete spinal cord injury defined by greater weakness in upper versus lower extremities, variable sensory loss, and variable bladder, bowel, and sexual dysfunction. The optimal timing of surgery for TCCS remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether timing of surgery for TCCS predicts neurological outcomes, length of stay, and complications. METHODS: Five databases were searched through March 2015. Articles were appraised independently by 2 reviewers, and the evidence synthesized according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. RESULTS: Nine studies (3 prognostic, 5 therapeutic, 1 both) satisfied inclusion criteria. Low level evidence suggests that patients operated on <24 hours after injury exhibit significantly greater improvements in postoperative American Spinal Injury Association motor scores and the functional independence measure at 1 year than those operated on >24 hours after injury. Moderate evidence suggests that patients operated on <2 weeks after injury have a higher postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and recovery rate than those operated on >2 weeks after injury. There is insufficient evidence that lengths of hospital or intensive care unit stay differ between patients who undergo early versus delayed surgery. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence that timing between injury and surgery predicts mortality rates or serious or minor adverse events. CONCLUSION: Surgery for TCCS <24 hours after injury appears safe and effective. Although there is insufficient evidence to provide a clear recommendation for early surgery (<24 hours), it is preferable to operate during the first hospital admission and <2 weeks after injury.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".