Impact of Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Neurologic, Functional, and Safety Outcomes in Patients With Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to evaluate the utility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with acute spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and Google Scholar was conducted for literature published through May 12, 2015, to answer key questions associated with the use of MRI in patients with acute SCI. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 796 potentially relevant citations, 8 of which were included in this review. One study used MRI in a protocol to decide on early surgical decompression. The MRI-protocol group showed improved outcomes; however, the quality of evidence was deemed very low due to selection bias. Seven studies reported MRI predictors of neurologic or functional outcomes. There was moderate-quality evidence that longer intramedullary hemorrhage (2 studies) and low-quality evidence that smaller spinal canal diameter at the location of maximal spinal cord compression and the presence of cord swelling are associated with poor neurologic recovery. There was moderate-quality evidence that clinical outcomes are not predicted by SCI lesion length and the presence of cord edema. CONCLUSIONS: Certain MRI characteristics appear to be predictive of outcomes in acute SCI, including length of intramedullary hemorrhage (moderate-quality evidence), canal diameter at maximal spinal cord compression (low-quality evidence), and spinal cord swelling (low-quality evidence). Other imaging features were either inconsistently (presence of hemorrhage, maximal canal compromise, and edema length) or not associated with outcomes. The paucity of literature highlights the need for well-designed prospective studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".