The Impact of Mean Arterial Pressure on Functional Outcome Post Trauma-Related Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Scoping Systematic Review of the Human Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a scoping systematic review on the literature surrounding mean arterial pressure (MAP) and functional outcomes post traumatic acute spinal cord injury (ASCI). METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature via searching MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library from inception to January 2015. We also performed a handsearch of various published meeting proceedings. Through a 2-step review process, employing 2 independent reviewers, we selected articles for the final review based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the final review. Only 2 were prospective studies. All studies documented some degree of objective functional outcome in relation to MAP posttraumatic ASCI. Four studies documented a relation between higher MAP and improved functional outcome. Five studies failed to show any relationship between MAP and functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although no definitive conclusions could be reached based on the data collected, this study does give valuable insight into future avenues of research on the topic of hemodynamic management in traumatic ASCI as well as provides guidelines for refinement of future study design.
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 | 0.027 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".