MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296797058 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263499

The Winnipeg Intraspinal Pressure Monitoring Study (WISP): A protocol for validation of fiberoptic pressure monitoring for acute traumatic spinal cord injury

2022· article· en· W4296797058 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Perry Dhaliwal, Marshall F. Wilkinson, Frederick A. Zeiler

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of ManitobaResearch ManitobaNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeHealth Sciences Centre Foundation
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injurySpinal cordAnesthesiaDecompressionTraumatic brain injuryBlood pressureSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research efforts have been focused on limiting secondary injury after traumatic spinal cord injury by performing spinal decompression and early optimization of spinal cord perfusion. The Winnipeg Intraspinal Pressure Monitoring Study (WISP) was designed to validate the technique of intraspinal pressure monitoring at the site of injury using a fiberoptic pressure monitor placed at the site of injury. OBJECTIVES: To describe the design of the WISP study. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive. METHODS: We explain the current limitations in the available scientific literature around the topic of blood pressure management for acute traumatic spinal cord injury and rational for the WISP study. Then, we describe the design of WISP including the patient selection criteria, study interventions, follow up schedules and outcome measurements. A multitude of future research avenues are also discussed. RESULTS: The WISP study is a single center pilot study designed to validate the technique of intraspinal pressure monitoring following acute traumatic spinal cord injury. The study involves the measurement of intraspinal pressure from within the subarachnoid space at the site of injury to derive a number of physiological parameters including spinal cord perfusion pressure, spinal cord blood volume, measures of spinal cord compliance and vascular reactivity indices. Twenty eligible patients will be recruited and followed for a period of 12 months with visits scheduled for the first 5 days and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The WISP study will provide the first attempt in North America at validation of intraspinal pressure monitoring with a fiberoptic pressure monitor at the site of injury. Successful validation will lead to future studies to define optimal spinal cord perfusion pressure, relationships of neural injury biomarkers and outcomes as well as epigenetic studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration# NCT04550117).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→