Promoting Long-Term Health among People with Spinal Cord Injury: What’s New?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key ingredient to successful health promotion is a primary care provider who can offer an informed first response to lifestyle issues, emerging problems and chronic challenges. This article aims to assist family physicians to play their role in promoting the health of people with SCI, by summarizing the latest evidence in the management of spinal cord injury in primary care. This study used a scoping review methodology to survey peer-reviewed journal articles and clinical guidelines published between January 2012 to June 2016. This search strategy identified 153 articles across 20 topics. A prevention framework is used to identify five primary, nine secondary, four tertiary, and two quaternary prevention issues about which family physicians require current information. Major changes in the management of SCI in primary care were noted for 8 of the 20 topics, specifically in the areas of pharmacological management of neuropathic pain and urinary tract infection; screening for bowel and bladder cancer; improvements in wound care; and clarification of dietary fibre recommendations. All of these changes are represented in the 3rd edition of Actionable Nuggets—an innovative tool to assist family physicians to be aware of the best practices in primary care for spinal cord injury.
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 | 0.019 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".