Hemodynamic Management of Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of acute spinal cord injury (SCI) management is to reduce secondary injuries and improve neurological recovery after its occurrence. This review aimed to explore the literature regarding hemodynamic management to reduce ischemic secondary injury and improve neurologic outcome following acute SCI. The PubMed database was searched for studies investigating blood flow, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and spinal cord perfusion pressure after SCI. The 2013 guidelines of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons recommended maintaining MAP at 85-90 mmHg for 7 days after SCI to potentially improve outcome. However, this recommendation was based on weak evidence for neurologic benefit. The maintenance of MAP will typically require vasopressors, which may have their own set of complications. More recently, studies have suggested the potential importance of considering spinal cord perfusion pressure in addition to the MAP. Further research on the hemodynamic management of acute SCI is required to determine how to optimize neurologic recovery. Evidence-based guidelines for hemodynamic management should acknowledge the gaps in knowledge and the limitations of the current literature.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".