Impact of a Quality Improvement Program on the Neurological Outcome of Patients with Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Before-After Mono-Centric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a major cause of severe disability. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a quality improvement program on neurological recovery after SCI. Before-after study during two phases was done in one intensive care unit in a university hospital. The quality improvement project comprised protective mechanical ventilation, early tracheostomy in anatomical injury above the sixth cervical vertebra, early enteral nutrition, early mobilization, and active perineal care in adult SCI patients. The primary endpoint was the difference between the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score between discharge and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (Delta ASIA). Fifty-seven and 60 patients were included in the control and in the intervention period respectively. The ASIA motor score upon ICU admission was 16 (7–37) before and 11 (2–30) after the implementation (p = 0.30). The implementation phase was associated with lower tidal volumes (p < 0.001), higher positive end-expiratory pressure (p < 0.001), earlier tracheostomy (p = 0.01), earlier enteral nutrition initiation (p < 0.05), earlier mobilization (p < 0.05), and more active perineal care (p < 0.05). The Delta ASIA was +16 [4–32] after versus +6 [0–14] before the intervention (p < 0.05). After adjustment for potential cofounders, the intervention phase was significantly associated with higher Delta ASIA (β coefficient, 11.4; CI95 [1.9–21]; p = 0.01) in multi-variable analysis. No secular time trend unrelated to the intervention was highlighted. One year after trauma, the Delta ASIA was higher in the intervention period than in the control period (+34 [15–60] vs. +11 [0–33]; p < 0.05). After adjustment on potential confounders, an early in-ICU rehabilitation program in SCI patients was associated with higher neurological score upon ICU discharge.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".