Faculty Opinions recommendation of A clinical prediction rule for ambulation outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury: a longitudinal cohort study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic spinal cord injury is a serious disorder in which early prediction of ambulation is important to counsel patients and to plan rehabilitation. We developed a reliable, validated prediction rule to assess a patient's chances of walking independently after such injury.METHODS: We undertook a longitudinal cohort study of adult patients with traumatic spinal cord injury, with early (within the first 15 days after injury) and late (1-year follow-up) clinical examinations, who were admitted to one of 19 European centres between July, 2001, and June, 2008. A clinical prediction rule based on age and neurological variables was derived from the international standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury with a multivariate logistic regression model. Primary outcome measure 1 year after injury was independent indoor walking based on the Spinal Cord Independence Measure. Model performances were quantified with respect to discrimination (area under receiver-operating-characteristics curve [AUC]). Temporal validation was done in a second group of patients from July, 2008, to December, 2009.FINDINGS: Of 1442 patients with spinal cord injury, 492 had available outcome measures. A combination of age (< 65 vs ≥65 years), motor scores of the quadriceps femoris (L3), gastrocsoleus (S1) muscles, and light touch sensation of dermatomes L3 and S1 showed excellent discrimination in distinguishing independent walkers from dependent walkers and non-walkers (AUC 0·956, 95% CI 0·936-0·976, p< 0·0001). Temporal validation in 99 patients confirmed excellent discriminating ability of the prediction rule (AUC 0·967, 0·939-0·995, p< 0·0001).INTERPRETATION: Our prediction rule, including age and four neurological tests, can give an early prognosis of an individual's ability to walk after traumatic spinal cord injury, which can be used to set rehabilitation goals and might improve the ability to stratify patients in interventional trials.FUNDING: Internationale Stiftung für Forschung in Paraplegie.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. PMID: 21377202
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 | 0.013 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.035 |
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".