MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389141994 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2023.2284223

Reducing endocrine metabolic disease risk in adults with chronic spinal cord injury: strategic activities conducted by the Ontario-Quebec RIISC team

2023· review· en· W4389141994 on OpenAlexaffabout
B. Catharine Craven, Wagner Souza Silva, Susan Jaglal, Jenna C. Gibbs, Matheus Joner Wiest, Shane N. Sweet, Peter Athanasopoulos, Marie‐Ève Lamontagne, Lynn Boag, Eleni Patsakos, Dalton L. Wolfe, Audrey L. Hicks, Désirée B. Maltais, Krista L. Best, Dany H. Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcMaster UniversityParkwood InstituteCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityUniversity of GuelphQuebec Rehabilitation Research NetworkUniversité LavalMcGill UniversitySpinal Cord Injury OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRehabilitationDiseasePhysical therapyHealth careSpinal cord injuryGerontologyIntensive care medicinePsychiatrySpinal cordInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: ommunity (RIISC) team aimed to develop and evaluate innovative rehabilitation interventions to identify endocrine metabolic disease (EMD) risk, intending to reduce the frequency and severity of EMD related morbidity and mortality among adults living with chronic spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interprovincial team from Ontario and Quebec reviewed available EMD literature and evidence syntheses and completed an inventory of health services, policies and practices in SCI/D care. The review outcomes were combined with expert opinion to create an EMD risk model to inform health service transformation. RESULTS: EMD risk and mortality are highly prevalent among adults with chronic SCI/D. In stark contrast, few rehabilitation interventions target EMD outcomes. The modelled solution proposes: 1) abandoning single-disease paradigms and examining a holistic perspective of the individual's EMD risk, and 2) developing and disseminating practice-based research approaches in outpatient community settings. CONCLUSIONS: RIISC model adoption could accelerate EMD care optimization, and ultimately inform the design of large-scale longitudinal pragmatic trials likely to improve health outcomes. Linking the RIISC team activities to economic evaluations and policy deliverables will strengthen the relevance and impact among policymakers, health care providers and patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207