A Systematic Review of the Scientific Literature for Rehabilitation/Habilitation Among Individuals With Pediatric-Onset Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To conduct a systematic review to examine the scientific literature for rehabilitation/habilitation among individuals with pediatric-onset spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: A literature search of multiple databases (i.e., PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO) was conducted and was filtered to include studies involving humans, published as full-length articles up to December 2020, and in English. Included studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) ≥50% of the study sample had experienced a traumatic, acquired, nonprogressive spinal cord injury (SCI) or a nontraumatic, acquired, noncongenital SCI; (2) SCI onset occurred at ≤21 years of age; and (3) sample was assessed for a rehabilitation/habilitation-related topic. Studies were assigned a level of evidence using an adapted Sackett scale modified down to five levels. Data extracted from each study included author(s), year of publication, country of origin, study design, subject characteristics, rehabilitation/habilitation topic area, intervention (if applicable), and outcome measures. Results: = 5; 2.8%). Sample sizes ranged from 1 to 3172 with a median of 26 (interquartile range [IQR], 116.5). Rehabilitation/habilitation topics were categorized by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF); most studies evaluated ICF Body Function. There were 69 unique clinical health outcome measures reported. Conclusion: The evidence for rehabilitation/habilitation of pediatric-onset SCI is extremely limited; nearly all studies (98%) are level 4-5 evidence. Future studies across several domains should be conducted with novel approaches to research design to alleviate issues related to sample sizes and heterogeneity.
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 | 0.023 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".