MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415868523 · doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000000287

Acute Spinal Cord Injury

2015· review· en· W2415868523 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher D. Witiw, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRiluzoleSpinal cord injuryNeuroprotectionExcitotoxicitySpinal cordDecompressionParaplegiaClinical trialIntensive care medicineNeuroscienceAnesthesiaSurgeryDiseasePharmacologyGlutamate receptorPathologyAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of the pathophysiological processes that comprise the early secondary phases of spinal cord injury such as spinal cord ischemia, cellular excitotoxicity, ionic dysregulation, and free-radical mediated peroxidation is far greater now than ever before, thanks to substantial laboratory research efforts. These discoveries are now being translated into the clinical realm and have led to targeted upfront medical management with a focus on tissue oxygenation and perfusion and include avoidance of hypotension, induction of hypertension, early transfer to specialized centers, and close monitoring in a critical care setting. There is also active exploration of neuroprotective and neuroregenerative agents; a number of which are currently in late stage clinical trials including minocycline, riluzole, AC-105, SUN13837, and Cethrin. Furthermore, new data have emerged demonstrating that the timing of spinal cord decompression after injury impacts recovery and that early decompression leads to significant improvements in neurological recovery. With this review we aim to provide a concise, clinically relevant and up-to-date summary of the topic of acute spinal cord injury, highlighting recent advancements and areas where further study is needed.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.395 · 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

Citations222
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Disorders & TechniquesSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207