A Scoping Review of Registered Clinical Studies on Management of Individuals With Acute Spinal Cord Injury (2000-2020): Trends and Characteristics of the Research Initiatives.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This scoping review examined the current trends and characteristics of the clinical research initiatives on the management of acute spinal cord injury. This review included all clinical studies on the acute treatment of spinal cord injury that were registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov website from February 2000 to December 2020. The search strategy combined the terms "acute spinal cord injury" and "treatment." There has been a gradual increase in the number of registered clinical studies on acute treatment of spinal cord injury over the past two decades. Of the 116 studies, there were 103 interventional studies, 12 observational studies, and 1 registry. While 115 clinical studies recruited male and female participants, most of the registered clinical studies included only adults with an upper age limit after spinal cord injury. Most of the registered clinical studies were interventional studies led by single institutions in North America (n = 70), Europe (n = 29), and Asia (n = 15). Most of the research initiatives were interventional studies on new therapies for management of individuals with spinal cord injury (n = 91). In conclusion, the results of this scoping review suggest that although there has been an increase in the amount and diversity of the research initiatives on treatment of acute spinal cord injury over the past two decades, their generalizability remains relatively limited.
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 | 0.081 | 0.271 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.050 | 0.066 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".