Impact of Surgical Timing on Motor Level Lowering in Motor Complete Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with complete traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) have a low potential to recover ambulation. Motor level recovery, adjacent to the level of injury, could influence functional independency. This study addresses whether surgical timing influences motor level recovery in patients with motor complete (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] Impairment Scale A [AIS A]) and motor incomplete (AIS B) tSCI. A retrospective cohort study was performed in the Netherlands in patients with AIS A/B tSCI (C2-L2), who consecutively underwent surgery between January 2010 and April 2020. Neurological examination was performed directly at presentation to the emergency room and at discharge from the rehabilitation facility. Motor level lowering, AIS grade, and upper and lower extremity motor score recovery were calculated for patients who underwent early (< 24 h) and late (24 h+) surgery. A total of 96 patients met the inclusion criteria. In the multi-variate analysis, late surgical decompression (24 h+) was negatively associated with ≥1 motor level lowering and ≥2 AIS grade improvement [odds ratio (OR) 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01, 0.67], p = 0.046, and OR 0.06 [95% CI: 0.00, 047], p = 0.030. respectively). The presence of sacral sparing (AIS B) at initial examination, and cervical level of the tSCI were associated with ≥1 motor level lowering. In addition, AO Spine C–type injuries were negatively associated with any type of neurological recovery, except motor level lowering. Although sensorimotor complete injuries as well as thoracolumbar injuries negatively influence neurological recovery, early surgical decompression (< 24 h) appears independently associated with enhanced neurological recovery in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury despite level and severity of injury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".