Epidemiology of War-Related Spinal Cord Injury Among Combatants: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: War-related spinal cord injuries (SCIs) are commonly more severe and complex than traumatic SCIs among civilians. This systematic review, for the first time, synthesized and critically appraised the literature on the epidemiology of war-related SCIs. This review aimed to identify distinct features from the civilian SCIs that can have an impact on the management of military and civilian SCIs. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles on epidemiology of war-related SCI among combatants, published from 1946 to December 20, 2017. This review included only original publications on epidemiological aspects of SCIs that occur during an act of war. The STROBE statement was used to examine the quality of the publications. RESULTS: The literature search identified 1594 publications, of which 25 articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies were classified into the following topics: 17 articles reported demographics, level and severity of SCI, mechanism of injury and/or associated bodily injuries; 5 articles reported the incidence of war-related SCI; and 6 articles reported the frequency of SCI among other war-related bodily injuries. Overall, military personnel with war-related SCI were typically young, white men, with predominantly thoracic or lumbar level, complete (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] Impairment Scale A) SCI due to gunshot or explosion and often associated with other bodily injuries. Marines appear to be at a greater risk of war-related SCI than the military personal in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. CONCLUSIONS: The war-related SCIs among soldiers are distinct from the traumatic SCI in the general population. The majority of the current literature is based on the American experiences in most recent wars.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".