P.187 Evaluating congruency between intramedullary and subdural pressure in a porcine model of acute spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical guidelines recommend MAP maintenance at 85-90 mmHg to optimize spinal cord perfusion post-SCI. Recently, there has been increased interest in spinal cord perfusion pressure as a surrogate marker for spinal cord blood flow. The study aims to determine the congruency of subdural and intramedullary spinal cord pressure measurements at the site of SCI, both rostral and caudal to the epicenter of injury. Methods: Seven Yucatan pigs underwent a T5 to L1 laminectomy with intramedullary (IM) and subdural (SD) pressure sensors placed 2 mm rostral and 2 mm caudal to the epicenter of SCI. A T10 contusion SCI was performed followed by an 8-hour period of monitoring. Axial ultrasound images were captured at the epicenter of injury pre-SCI, post-SCI, and hourly thereafter. Results: Pigs with pre-SCI cord to dural sac ratio (CDSR) of >0.8 exhibited greater occlusion of the subdural space post-SCI with a positive correlation between IM and SD pressure rostral to the injury and a negative correlation caudal to the epicenter. Pigs with pre-SCI CDSR <0.8 exhibited no correlation between IM and SD pressure. Conclusions: Congruency of IM and SD pressure is dependent on compartmentalization of the spinal cord occurring secondary to swelling that occludes the subdural space.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".