P.232 Motor Recovery after Early Surgical Decompression in Cervical ASIA A Spinal Cord Injury Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite growing evidence for early surgical decompression for traumatic cervical spinal cord injury(tCSCI) patients, controversy surrounds the efficacy of early surgical decompression on patients with a complete (ASIA A) cervical injury. Methods: Patients with ASIA A cervical tCSCI were isolated from 4 prospective, multi-center datasets. Patients who had a Glasgow coma scale of less than 13, were over the age of 70 or under 16 were excluded. Significant gain was defined to include those that recovered more than two muscle groups (greater than 3/5 power) below their level of injury. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was then done to compare significant gain over the 1 year follow-up period for patients with and without early decompressive surgery (<24hrs). Results: We identified 420 cervical ASIA A tCSCI patients. The mean number of muscle groups gained was 2.69 (SD 2.3.12) for those who had early surgery compared to 2.37 (SD 3.38) for those with late surgery. Of those patients who had early surgery 39.67% had a significant improvement vs. 28.76% of those who did not have early surgery (P = 0.030). Conclusions: For the first time, we have shown a clear therapeutic benefit of early surgical decompression within 24 hrs in ASIA A tCSCI patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".