An Introduction to the North American Clinical Trials Network for Spinal Cord Injury Special Edition: Reflections on Accomplishments and a Look to the Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) has been established as a network of translational clinical research centers focused on traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) with the goals of facilitating clinical translational research, promotion of enhanced clinical care protocols including the principle of early surgery for SCI, and improving outcomes for individuals with acute SCI. Since its foundation in 2004 by Dr. Robert Grossman, NACTN has evolved into a powerful multi-stakeholder consortium of eight neurosurgical department faculties at university-affiliated institutions in the United States and Canada, a data management center, and a pharmacological center. To date, high-quality data from more than 1000 patients have been prospectively collected, providing us with a strong body of evidence surrounding SCI epidemiology, the natural history, and complications of acute and subacute SCI management. Key accomplishments of NACTN are summarized in this Focus issue. They include the launch, in collaboration with AO Spine, of the international, multi-center, placebo-controlled, Phase III Riluzole in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (RISCIS) that recruited 192 patients. While the primary analyses did not achieve the predetermined endpoint of efficacy for Riluzole, likely related to insufficient power, pre-planned secondary analyses demonstrated that all subgroups of cervical SCI subjects (AIS grades A, B and C) treated with Riluzole showed significant gains in functional recovery. The Focus Issue also includes a detailed analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of riluzole in the setting of acute SCI (RISCIS-PK study). Additional achievements include key contributions to the evidence supporting the role of early surgery in acute SCI, and a better understanding of the impact of complications on the outcomes of SCI. Future directions of NACTN will build on past accomplishments and focus on enhanced collaborations with other SCI networks, advanced analytics to examine large datasets, and a greater focus on chronic 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 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 | 0.405 | 0.436 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.047 | 0.049 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.071 | 0.105 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
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".