MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362520706 · doi:10.1089/neu.2022.0408

Interhospital Transfer Delays Care for Spinal Cord Injury Patients: A Report from the North American Clinical Trials Network for Spinal Cord Injury

2023· article· en· W4362520706 on OpenAlexaff
Margot Kelly-Hedrick, Beatrice Ugiliweneza, Elizabeth G. Toups, George Jimsheleishvili, Shekar N. Kurpad, Bizhan Aarabi, James S. Harrop, Norah Foster, Rory Goodwin, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Michael G. Fehlings, Charles H. Tator, James D. Guest, Chris J. Neal, Muhammad M. Abd‐El‐Barr, Theresa Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryTrauma centerClinical trialInjury Severity ScoreSpinal cordSurgeryPoison controlAnesthesiaInjury preventionEmergency medicineRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North America Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) for Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) is a consortium of tertiary medical centers that has maintained a prospective SCI registry since 2004, and it has espoused that early surgical intervention is associated with improved outcome. It has previously been shown that initial presentation to a lower acuity center and necessity of transfer to a higher acuity center reduce rates of early surgery. The NACTN database was evaluated to examine the association between interhospital transfer (IHT), early surgery, and outcome, taking into account distance traveled and site of origin for the patient. Data from a 15-year period of the NACTN SCI Registry were analyzed (years 2005–2019). Patients were stratified into transfers directly from the scene to a Level 1 trauma center (NACTN site) versus IHT from a Level 2 or 3 trauma facility. The main outcome was surgery within 24 hours of injury (yes/no), whereas secondary outcomes were length of stay, death, discharge disposition, and 6-month American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grade conversion. For the IHT patients, distance traveled for transfer was calculated by measuring the shortest distance between origin and NACTN hospital. Analysis was performed with Brown-Mood test and chi-square tests. Of 724 patients with transfer data, 295 (40%) underwent IHT and 429 (60%) were admitted directly from the scene of injury. Patients who underwent IHT were more likely to have a less severe SCI (AIS D; p = 0.002), have a central cord injury ( p = 0.004), and have a fall as their mechanism of injury ( p < 0.0001) than those directly admitted to an NACTN center. Of the 634 patients who had surgery, direct admission to an NACTN site was more likely to result in surgery within 24 hours compared with IHT patients (52% vs. 38%) ( p < 0.0003). Median IHT distance was 28 miles (interquartile range [IQR] = 13–62 miles). There was no significant difference in death, length of stay, discharge to a rehab facility versus home, or 6-month AIS grade conversion rates between the two groups. Patients who underwent IHT to an NACTN site were less likely to have surgery within 24 hours of injury, compared with those directly admitted to the Level 1 trauma facility. Although there was no difference in mortality rates, length of stay, or 6-month AIS conversion between groups, patients with IHT were more likely be older with a less severe level of injury (AIS D). This study suggests there are barriers to timely recognition of SCI in the field, appropriate admission to a higher level of care after recognition, and challenges related to the management of individuals with less severe SCI.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.209
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.209
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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