MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acute traumatic quadriplegia in adults: predictors of acute in-hospital mortality

2016· article· en· W2444245250 on OpenAlexaff
Khalid Al-Saleh, Drew A. Bednar, Farroukhyar Forough

Bibliographic record

VenueTurkish Neurosurgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionMortality rateSpinal cord injuryInjury Severity ScoreEmergency medicineMultivariate analysisPopulationInjury preventionPoison controlPediatricsInternal medicineSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To assess the in-hospital mortality rate in adult patients suffering acute traumatic complete quadriplegia and determine the possible predictors of mortality in these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A review of all complete quadriplegics treated from January 1996 through March 2004 in a regional spine injuries unit measuring in-hospital mortality and other factors that might contribute to increased mortality. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to explore these possible predictors of mortality. RESULTS: We identified 126 cases of cervical spinal cord injury treated at our hospital from January 1996 to March 2004 and identified only 62 cases of complete quadriplegia. Of 62 patients, 11 (17.7%) died in the hospital. Age, gender, injury mechanism and medical co-morbidity showed only trends towards a higher mortality. Age and pre-injury medical co-morbidity were found to be significant independent predicting factors for mortality. Gender, mechanism of injury, neurological level and injury severity score were not the predictors of mortality in these patients. CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of the current evidence, advanced age and pre-existing medical co-morbidity are likely predictors of hospital mortality in the traumatic quadriplegia population.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTurkish NeurosurgerySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207