Guidelines for the Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Spinal Cord Injury: An Introduction to a Focus Issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Introduction to a guidelines project. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this focus issue is to present guidelines that outline how to best manage patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and spinal cord injury (SCI). Topics addressed in this focus issue include: 1) management strategies for patients with mild, moderate and severe DCM; and 2a) timing of surgical decompression; b) the use of methylprednisolone sodium succinate; c) the type and timing of anticoagulation strategies; d) the role of magnetic resonance imaging in clinical decision making and outcome prediction; and e) the type and timing of rehabilitation in patients with SCI. METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted to address key clinical questions and to synthesize the current body of evidence. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used the results of these reviews, along with their clinical expertise, to develop clinical practice guidelines, in a process that adhered to methodology proposed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. RESULTS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group combined the systematic review findings with their clinical expertise and opinions to formulate recommendations on how to manage patients with DCM and SCI. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines will serve as tools to assist clinicians in their decision making by offering a perspective that combines the available evidence, expertise from a variety of clinicians, and patient values.
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 | 0.066 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".