Determining priorities in functional rehabilitation related to quality of life one-year following a traumatic spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context/Objective: To determine the relationship between the different functional aspects (as determined by the Spinal Cord Independence Measure) and quality of life (QOL) following a traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI), considering clinical confounding factors.Design: Retrospective review of a prospective cohortSetting: A single Level-1 trauma center specialized in SCI careParticipants: One hundred and forty-two individuals sustaining an acute traumatic SCIInterventions: Not applicableOutcome measures: The four QOL domains as assessed by the WHOQoL-bref questionnaire 6–12 months following a TSCI.Results: Mobility subscore was the only functional aspect significantly associated with all QOL domains (physical, psychological, social and environmental). Females present better chronic social and environmental QOL when compared to males. The level of injury may also influence environmental QOL.Conclusion: Mobility training (mobility in bed, mobility with or without technical aids, transfers and stair management) should be an important part of the rehabilitation process in order to optimize chronic QOL following a TSCI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".