MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304692665 · doi:10.1152/jn.00367.2022

When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: a scoping review of activity-based therapy paired with spinal cord stimulation following spinal cord injury

2022· review· en· W4304692665 on OpenAlexafffund
Claire Shackleton, Daniel D. Hodgkiss, Soshi Samejima, Tiev Miller, Mónica A. Pérez, Tom E. Nightingale, Rahul Sachdeva, Andrei V. Krassioukov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInternational Spinal Research TrustRick Hansen FoundationCanada Foundation for InnovationGovernment of CanadaMinistry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' ServicesWings for LifeParalyzed Veterans of America Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineNeuromodulationSpinal cord injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyTetraplegiaPsychological interventionRehabilitationFunctional electrical stimulationSpinal cordStimulationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord injury (SCI) results in both motor and autonomic impairments, which can negatively affect independence and quality of life and increase morbidity and mortality. Despite emerging evidence supporting the benefits of activity-based training and spinal cord stimulation as two distinct interventions for sensorimotor and autonomic recovery, the combined effects of these modalities are currently uncertain. This scoping review evaluated the effectiveness of paired interventions (exercise + spinal neuromodulation) for improving sensorimotor and autonomic functions in individuals with SCI. Four electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed manuscripts (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and EI-compedex Engineering Village) and data were independently extracted by two reviewers using pre-established extraction tables. A total of 15 studies representing 79 participants were included in the review, of which 73% were conducted within the past 5 years. Only two of the studies were randomized controlled studies, while the other 13 studies were case or case-series designs. Compared with activity-based training alone, spinal cord stimulation combined with activity-based training improved walking and voluntary muscle activation, and augmented improvements in lower urinary tract, bowel, resting metabolic rate, peak oxygen consumption, and thermoregulatory function. Spinal neuromodulation in combination with use-dependent therapies may provide greater neurorecovery and induce long-term benefits for both motor and autonomic function beyond the capacity of traditional activity-based therapies. However, evidence for combinational approaches is limited and there is no consensus for outcome measures or optimal protocol parameters, including stimulation settings. Future large-scale randomized trials into paired interventions are warranted to further investigate these preliminary findings.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0210.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207