MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752227846 · doi:10.1177/2192568217703387

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Introduction, Rationale, and Scope

2017· article· en· W2752227846 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Fehlings, Lindsay Tetreault, Jefferson R. Wilson, Brian K. Kwon, Anthony S. Burns, Allan R. Martin, Gregory W. J. Hawryluk, James S. Harrop

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineSpinal cord injuryIntensive care medicineStandardizationRehabilitationPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Physical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseEvidence-based medicineSpinal cordNursingAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute spinal cord injury (SCI) is a traumatic event that results in disturbances to normal sensory, motor, or autonomic function and ultimately affects a patient's physical, psychological, and social well-being. The management of patients with SCI has drastically evolved over the past century as a result of increasing knowledge on injury mechanisms, disease pathophysiology, and the role of surgery. There still, however, remain controversial areas surrounding available management strategies for the treatment of SCI, including the use of corticosteroids such as methylprednisolone sodium succinate, the optimal timing of surgical intervention, the type and timing of anticoagulation prophylaxis, the role of magnetic resonance imaging, and the type and timing of rehabilitation. This lack of consensus has prevented the standardization of care across treatment centers and among the various disciplines that encounter patients with SCI. The objective of this guideline is to form evidence-based recommendations for these areas of controversy and outline how to best manage patients with SCI. The ultimate goal of these guidelines is to improve outcomes and reduce morbidity in patients with SCI by promoting standardization of care and encouraging clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0130.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.439 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations375
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207