Lessons learned from the pilot study of an orthostatic hypotension intervention in the subacute phase following spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Following spinal cord injury (SCI) at the cervical or upper-thoracic level, orthostatic hypotension (OH) is observed in 13–100% of patients. This study aimed to test the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial combining a dynamic tilt-table (Erigo®) and functional electrical stimulation (FES) to mitigate OH symptoms in the subacute phase after SCI.Design: Pilot study.Setting: A tertiary rehabilitation hospital.Participants: Inpatients who had a C4-T6 SCI (AIS A-D) less than 12 weeks before recruitment, and reported symptoms of OH in their medical chart.Interventions: Screening sit-up test to determine eligibility, then 1 assessment session and 3 intervention sessions with Erigo® and FES for eligible participants.Outcome measures: Recruitment rate, duration of assessment and interventions, resources used, blood pressure, and Calgary Presyncope Form (OH symptoms).Results: Amongst the 232 admissions, 148 inpatient charts were reviewed, 11 inpatients met all inclusion criteria, 7 participated in a screening sit-up test, and 2 exhibited OH. Neither of the two participants recruited in the pilot study was able to fully complete the assessment and intervention sessions due to scheduling issues (i.e. limited available time).Conclusion: This pilot study evidenced the non-feasibility of the clinical trial as originally designed, due to the low recruitment rate and the lack of available time for research in participant’s weekday schedule. OH in the subacute phase after SCI was less prevalent and less incapacitating than expected. Conventional management and spontaneous resolution of symptoms appeared sufficient to mitigate OH in most patients with subacute 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 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 | 0.066 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".