Does Wait Time During Acute Care for Transfer to Rehabilitation Admission Impact the Outcomes After a Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of wait time in acute care for inpatient functional rehabilitation admission on the inpatient functional rehabilitation length of stay and functional outcome after a traumatic spinal cord injury. METHODS: A retrospective cohort including 277 patients admitted to a single level 1 spinal cord injury acute care center was completed. Partial correlations were used between wait time (in days) for transfer to inpatient functional rehabilitation, the inpatient functional rehabilitation length of stay, and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure total score in the chronic period, adjusting for confounding variables. Stratified analyses were carried out based on the age group and severity of the injury. RESULTS: Patients had to wait a mean of 7.3 ± 6.4 days (median = 6 days, interquartile range = 2-10 days, max = 29 days) for inpatient functional rehabilitation admission after rehabilitation readiness, which was not associated with the outcomes when adjusted ( P > 0.05). However, individuals 65 yrs or older with a motor-complete injury showed a lower functional status when exposed to wait time for transfer ( r = -0.87, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Wait time up to 29 days may have no impact on the inpatient functional rehabilitation length of stay nor functional outcome after traumatic spinal cord injury. However, additional resources and/or prioritization should be considered for vulnerable subgroups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".