Empirical targets for acute hemodynamic management of individuals with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the hemodynamic conditions associated with optimal neurologic improvement in individuals with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) who had lumbar intrathecal catheters placed to measure CSF pressure (CSFP). METHODS: Ninety-two individuals with acute SCI were enrolled in this multicenter prospective observational clinical trial. We monitored mean arterial pressure (MAP) and CSFP during the first week after injury and assessed neurologic function at baseline and 6 months after injury. We used relative risk iterations to determine transition points at which the likelihood of either improving neurologically or remaining unchanged neurologically was equivalent. These transition points guided our analyses in which we examined the linear relationships between time spent within target hemodynamic ranges (i.e., clinical adherence) and neurologic recovery. RESULTS: Relative risk transition points for CSFP, MAP, and spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) were linearly associated with neurologic improvement and directed the identification of key hemodynamic target ranges. Clinical adherence to the target ranges was positively and linearly related to improved neurologic outcomes. Adherence to SCPP targets, not MAP targets, was the best indicator of improved neurologic recovery, which occurred with SCPP targets of 60 to 65 mm Hg. Failing to maintain the SCPP within the target ranges was an important detrimental factor in neurologic recovery, particularly if the target range is set lower. CONCLUSION: We provide an empirical, data-driven approach to aid institutions in setting hemodynamic management targets that accept the real-life challenges of adherence to specific targets. Our results provide a framework to guide the development of widespread institutional management guidelines for acute traumatic SCI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".