Clinical practice guidelines for acute and post-acute care of patients with spinal cord injury: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Spinal cord injury (SCI) impacts quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for comprehensive SCI care are not completely agreed upon, leading to considerable variability in care and patient outcomes. Aims: We aim to summarise and critically evaluate existing CPGs for the care of patients with SCI at the acute and post-acute phase of their care, and to identify gaps in guidance for nursing and multidisciplinary care. Methods: The scoping review protocol was directed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline. Some 13 databases will be searched for eligible CPGs. Two independent reviewers will screen and extract data using pre-specified eligibility criteria. The quality of CPGs will be appraised using the AGREE II tool.
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 | 0.094 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.013 |
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".