Is it safe to initiate activity-based therapy within days following traumatic spinal cord injury? Preliminary results from the PROMPT-SCI trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Activity-based therapy initiated within days of the accident could prevent complications and improve neurofunctional outcomes in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI). However, it has never been attempted in humans with TSCI because of practical obstacles and potential safety concerns. The PROMPT-SCI trial is the first attempt at implementing ABT within the first days following a TSCI (i.e. very early ABT; VE-ABT). The objective is to determine if VE-ABT can be initiated safely in the intensive care unit (ICU) within 48 h of early decompressive surgery. DESIGN: As part of the PROMPT-SCI trial, 15 adult patients with severe TSCI were enrolled between April and November of 2021. The intervention consisted of 30-minute sessions of motor-assisted in-bed leg cycling starting within 48 h of early spinal surgery. Safety was assessed through continuous monitoring of vital signs and recording of adverse events during and after sessions. The main outcome measure was the achievement (yes or no) of a full and safe session within 48 h of early surgery. FINDINGS: Out of the 15 participants, 10 (66.6%) achieved this outcome. Out of the remaining 5, 2 were not cleared to engage in cycling within 48 h of surgery and 3 initiated cycling within 48 h but stopped prematurely. All 5 eventually completed a full and safe session within the next 1-2 days. In all 15 participants, there were no neurological deteriorations after the first completed session. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that it is safe and feasible to perform a first session of VE-ABT within days of a severe TSCI with no serious adverse events and excellent completion rates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".