Spinal Cord Stimulation Prevents Autonomic Dysreflexia in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord injury (SCI) results in severe cardiovascular dysfunction due to the disruption of supraspinal control. Autonomic dysreflexia (AD), an uncontrolled rise in blood pressure in response to peripheral stimuli including common bowel routine, digital anorectal stimulation (DARS), reduces the quality of life, and increases morbidity and mortality. Recently, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a potential intervention to mitigate unstable blood pressure following SCI. The objective of this case series was to test the real-time effect of epidural SCS (eSCS) at the lumbosacral spinal cord, the most common implant location, on mitigating AD in individuals with SCI. We recruited three individuals with cervical and upper thoracic motor-complete SCI who have an implanted epidural stimulator. We demonstrated that eSCS can reduce the elevation in blood pressure and prevent DARS-induced AD. The blood pressure variability analysis indicated that eSCS potentially reduced vascular sympathetic nervous system activity during DARS, compared to without eSCS. This case series provides evidence to support the use of eSCS to prevent AD episodes during routine bowel procedures, improving the quality of life for individuals with SCI and potentially reducing cardiovascular risks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".