MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761489902 · doi:10.1109/ihtc.2017.8058169

Technological aspects of traumatic spinal cord injury rehabilitation

2017· article· en· W2761489902 on OpenAlexaff
Mariana Cardoso Melo, D. R. Macedo, Alcimar Barbosa Soares, Sridhar Krishnan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationSpinal cord injuryPopulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineInvestment (military)Traumatic brain injuryPhysical therapyPsychologySpinal cordPsychiatryNursingPolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) is a lesion that occurs on the structure of the spine channel, and its origin can be traumatic or non traumatic. It has incidence in America between 24 to 54 cases per million per year. Because of many degrees of physical, psychological and social impact caused by SCI, several fronts of study are directed at treating, rehabilitating and reinsertion of this public in society. In addition, there are studies to comprehend how brain reorganization occurs after the injury; to avoid the progression of the lesion and to recover lost functionalities. There have been assistive technologies and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) developed to improve quality of life and allow more independence and mobility to people with SCI. Many countries of Latin America have limited information about the population with SCI, and due to the high economic and social impact of SCI, there is a huge need of investment in development of technologies for treatments, rehabilitation, low cost assistive devices and BCIs, that could be practical in clinics and accessible to the affected population and care-givers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207