Walking Outcome After Traumatic Paraplegic Spinal Cord Injury: The Function of Which Myotomes Makes a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of walking function after a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is crucial for an appropriate tailoring and application of therapeutical interventions. Long-term outcome of ambulation is strongly related to residual muscle function acutely after injury and its recovery potential. The identification of the underlying determinants of ambulation, however, remains a challenging task in SCI, a neurological disorder presented with heterogeneous clinical manifestations and recovery trajectories. OBJECTIVES: Stratification of walking function and determination of its most relevant underlying muscle functions based on stratified homogeneous patient subgroups. METHODS: Data from individuals with paraplegic SCI were used to develop a prediction-based stratification model, applying unbiased recursive partitioning conditional inference tree (URP-CTREE). The primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test at 6 months after injury. Standardized neurological assessments ≤15 days after injury were chosen as predictors. Resulting subgroups were incorporated into a subsequent node-specific analysis to attribute the role of individual lower extremity myotomes for the prognosis of walking function. RESULTS: Using URP-CTREE, the study group of 361 SCI patients was divided into 8 homogeneous subgroups. The node specific analysis uncovered that proximal myotomes L2 and L3 were driving factors for the differentiation between walkers and non-walkers. Distal myotomes L4-S1 were revealed to be responsible for the prognostic distinction of indoor and outdoor walkers (with and without aids). CONCLUSION: Stratification of a heterogeneous population with paraplegic SCI into more homogeneous subgroups, combined with the identification of underlying muscle functions prospectively determining the walking outcome, enable potential benefit for application in clinical trials and practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".