The Impact of Mean Arterial Pressure on Functional Outcome Post-Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Scoping Systematic Review of Animal Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to perform a scoping systematic review on the animal literature surrounding mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and functional outcomes post-acute spinal cord injury (ASCI). We performed a systematic review of the literature by searching: MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library from inception to January 2015. We also performed a hand search of various published meeting proceedings. Through a two-step review process, using two independent reviewers, we selected articles for the final review based on pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Ten studies were included within the final systematic review. A variety of animal models were used within these studies. All included studies had some objective means of documenting functional outcome post-manipulation of the MAP. Four studies could be considered to be "positive studies," showing some neurological improvement or beneficial effect to having the blood pressure manipulated. Two studies displayed worse functional outcomes secondary to episodes of hypotension. Four studies failed to demonstrate a relationship between MAP and functional outcome within the animal models. This review concludes that, within the animal literature, there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion about the effect of MAP on neurological outcome in animal models of ASCI.
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 | 0.024 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".