Does Improvement in American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale Grade Correlate With Functional Recovery in All Patients With a Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to determine what improvement on the American Spinal Injury Impairment Scale correlates with functional status after a traumatic spinal cord injury. DESIGN: We performed an observational cohort study, analyzing prospective data from 168 patients with traumatic spinal cord injury admitted to a single level 1 trauma center. A multivariable analysis was performed to assess the relationship between functional status (from the Spinal Cord Independence Measure) at 1-year follow-up and American Spinal Injury Impairment Scale grade (baseline and 1-yr follow-up), while taking into account covariables describing the sociodemographic status, trauma severity, and level of neurological injury. RESULTS: Individuals improving to at least American Spinal Injury Impairment Scale grade D had significantly higher Spinal Cord Independence Measure score compared with those not reaching American Spinal Injury Impairment Scale D (89.3 ± 15.2 vs. 52.1 ± 20.4) and were more likely to reach functional independence (68.5% vs. 3.6%), regardless of the baseline American Spinal Injury Impairment Scale grade. Higher final Spinal Cord Independence Measure was more likely with an initial American Spinal Injury Impairment Scale grade D (β = 1.504; 95% confidence interval = 0.46-2.55), and a final American Spinal Injury Impairment Scale grade D (β = 3.716; 95% CI = 2.77-4.66) or E (β = 4.422; 95% CI = 2.91-5.93). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that reaching American Spinal Injury Impairment Scale grade D or better 1 yr after traumatic spinal cord injury is highly predictive of significant functional recovery, more so than the actual improvement in American Spinal Injury Impairment Scale grade from the injury to the 1-yr follow-up.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".