Surgery to restore upper extremity function in tetraplegia—Preferences for early and frequent access to information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) identify improving upper extremity (UE) function as a top priority. In addition to comprehensive rehabilitation, UE surgeries, including nerve and tendon transfers, enhance function. However, barriers exist to disseminating information about surgical options to enhance UE function. OBJECTIVE: To assess the experiences and preferences of people with cervical SCI and their caregivers in accessing information about surgery to enhance UE function. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. Participants were followed up for 24 months and completed up to three interviews. SETTING: Tertiary care at academic and affiliated Veterans Administration Health Care Centers. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with cervical SCI (n = 35) ages 18 to 80 years with mid-cervical SCI American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale A, B, or C (at least 6 months post-injury) and their caregivers (n = 23) were eligible to participate. Participants were enrolled in three groups: nerve transfer, tendon transfer, or no UE reconstructive surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Semi-structured interviews about surgical knowledge and experiences. RESULTS: Data were analyzed and three themes were identified. First, providing information about UE surgical options early post-injury was recommended. The acute or inpatient rehabilitation phases of recovery were the preferred times to receive surgical information. Second, challenges with information dissemination were identified. Participants learned about UE surgery through independent research, medical provider interactions, or peers. Third, peers were identified as valuable resources for SCI needs and surgical information. CONCLUSIONS: Following cervical SCI, information about UE reconstructive surgeries should be a standard component of education during rehabilitation. An increased understanding of the reconstructive options available to improve UE function is necessary to educate stakeholders. Future research is needed to support the development of strategies to effectively present surgical information to individuals with SCI and health care providers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".