Pharmacological Management of Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A longitudinal multi-cohort observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Nearly every individual sustaining traumatic spinal cord injury receives multiple types and classes of medications to manage a litany of secondary complications. Prior clinical studies and evidence from animal models suggest that several of these medications could enhance or impede endogenous neurological recovery. However, there is a knowledge gap surrounding the spectrum of pharmacologic agents typically administered in the routine management of spinal cord injury. Objective To systematically determine the types of medications commonly administered, alone or in combination, in the acute to subacute phase of spinal cord injury. Methods We conducted an analysis of two largescale cohorts (the Sygen interventional trial and the SCIRehab observational cohort study) to determine what constitutes “ standards of acute pharmacological care” after spinal cord injury. Concomitant medication use, including dosage, timing and reason for administration, was tracked. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the medications administered within the first 60 days after spinal cord injury. Results Across 2040 individuals with spinal cord injury, 775 unique medications were administered within the two months after injury. On average, patients enrolled in the Sygen trial received 9.9 ± 4.9 (range 0-34), 14.3 ± 6.3 (range 1-40), 18.6 ± 8.2 (range 0-58), and 21.5 ± 9.7 (range 0-59) medications within the first 7, 14, 30, and 60 days post-injury, respectively. Patients enrolled in the SCIRehab cohort study received on average 1.7 ± 1.7 (range 0-11), 3.7 ± 3.7 (range 0-24), 8.5 ± 6.3 (range 0-42), and 13.5 ± 8.3 (range 0-52) medications within the first 7, 14, 30, and 60 days post-injury, respectively. Polypharmacy was commonplace (up to 43 medications per day per patient). Approximately 10% of medications were administered acutely as prophylaxis (e.g., against the development of pain or infections). Conclusions To our knowledge, this was the first time acute pharmacological practices have been comprehensively examined after spinal cord injury. Our study revealed a high degree of polypharmacy in the acute stages of spinal cord injury, with potential to both positively and negatively impact neurological recovery. This data may provide key insight to achieve better understanding of how the acute pharmacological management of spinal cord injury affects long-term recovery. All results can be interactively explored on the R X SCI web site ( https://jutzelec.shinyapps.io/RxSCI/ ) and GitHub repository ( https://github.com/jutzca/Acute-Pharmacological-Treatment-in-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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".