What Has Been Learned from Magnetic Resonance Imaging Examination of the Injured Human Spinal Cord: A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has transformed the way surgeons and researchers study and treat spinal cord injury. In this narrative review, we explore the historical context of imaging the human spinal cord and describe how MRI has evolved from providing the first visualization of the human spinal cord in the 1980s to a remarkable set of imaging tools today. The article focuses in particular on the role of Canadian researchers to this field. We begin by outlining the clinical context of traumatic injury to the human spinal cord and describe why current MRI standards fall short when it comes to treating this disabling condition. Parts 2 and 3 of this work explore an exciting and dramatic shift in the use of MRI technology to aid in our understanding and treatment of traumatic injury to the spinal cord. We explore the use of functional imaging (part 2) and structural imaging (part 3) and explore how these techniques have evolved, how they are used, and the challenges that we face for continued refinement and application to patients who live with the neurological and functional deficits caused by injury to the delicate spinal cord.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".