Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials in spinal cord injury: Neuroimaging biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) leads to immediate neuronal and axonal damage at the focal injury site and triggers secondary pathologic series of events resulting in sensorimotor and autonomic dysfunction below the level of injury. Although there is no cure for SCI, neuroprotective and regenerative therapies show promising results at the preclinical stage. There is a pressing need to develop non-invasive outcome measures that can indicate whether a candidate therapeutic agent or a cocktail of therapeutic agents are positively altering the underlying disease processes. Recent conventional MRI studies have quantified spinal cord lesion characteristics and elucidated their relationship between severity of injury to clinical impairment and recovery. Next to the quantification of the primary cord damage, quantitative MRI measures of spinal cord (rostrocaudally to the lesion site) and brain integrity have demonstrated progressive and specific neurodegeneration of afferent and efferent neuronal pathways. MRI could therefore play a key role to ultimately uncover the relationship between clinical impairment/recovery and injury-induced neurodegenerative changes in the spinal cord and brain. Moreover, neuroimaging biomarkers hold promises to improve clinical trial design and efficiency through better patient stratification. The purpose of this narrative review is therefore to propose a guideline of clinically available MRI sequences and their derived neuroimaging biomarkers that have the potential to assess tissue damage at the macro- and microstructural level after SCI. In this piece, we make a recommendation for the use of key MRI sequences-both conventional and advanced-for clinical work-up and clinical trials.
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 | 0.029 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".