MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389483176 · doi:10.1089/neu.2023.0140

Impact of Upper Limb Motor Recovery on Functional Independence After Traumatic Low Cervical Spinal Cord Injury

2023· article· en· W4389483176 on OpenAlexaff
Saad Javeed, Justin K. Zhang, Jacob K. Greenberg, Kathleen Botterbush, Braeden Benedict, Benjamin A. Plog, Vivek P. Gupta, Christopher F. Dibble, Jawad M. Khalifeh, Huacong Wen, Yuying Chen, Yikyung Park, Allan J. Belzberg, Sami Tuffaha, S. Shelby Burks, Allan D. Levi, Eric L. Zager, Amir H. Faraji, Mark A. Mahan, Rajiv Midha, Thomas J. Wilson, Neringa Juknis, Wilson Z. Ray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetraplegiaMedicineSpinal cord injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationUpper limbActivities of daily livingRehabilitationPhysical therapyElbowFunctional Independence MeasureSpinal cordSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) causes devastating loss of upper limb function and independence. Restoration of upper limb function can have a profound impact on independence and quality of life. In low-cervical SCI (level C5–C8), upper limb function can be restored via reinnervation strategies such as nerve transfer surgery. The translation of recovered upper limb motor function into functional independence in activities of daily living (ADLs), however, remains unknown in low cervical SCI (i.e., tetraplegia). The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of patterns in upper limb motor recovery with functional independence in ADLs. This will then inform prioritization of reinnervation strategies focused to maximize function in patients with tetraplegia. This retrospective study performed a secondary analysis of patients with low cervical (C5–C8) enrolled in the SCI Model Systems (SCIMS) database. Baseline neurological examinations and their association with functional independence in major ADLs—i.e., eating, bladder management, and transfers (bed/wheelchair/chair)—were evaluated. Motor functional recovery was defined as achieving motor strength, in modified research council (MRC) grade, of ≥ 3 /5 at one year from ≤ 2/5 at baseline. The association of motor function recovery with functional independence at one-year follow-up was compared in patients with recovered elbow flexion (C5), wrist extension (C6), elbow extension (C7), and finger flexion (C8). A multi-variable logistic regression analysis, adjusting for known factors influencing recovery after SCI, was performed to evaluate the impact of motor function at one year on a composite outcome of functional independence in major ADLs. Composite outcome was defined as functional independence measure score of 6 or higher (complete independence) in at least two domains among eating, bladder management, and transfers. Between 1992 and 2016, 1090 patients with low cervical SCI and complete neurological/functional measures were included. At baseline, 67% of patients had complete SCI and 33% had incomplete SCI. The majority of patients were dependent in eating, bladder management, and transfers. At one-year follow-up, the largest proportion of patients who recovered motor function in finger flexion (C8) and elbow extension (C7) gained independence in eating, bladder management, and transfers. In multi-variable analysis, patients who had recovered finger flexion (C8) or elbow extension (C7) had higher odds of gaining independence in a composite of major ADLs (odds ratio [OR] = 3.13 and OR = 2.87, respectively, p < 0.001). Age 60 years (OR = 0.44, p = 0.01), and complete SCI (OR = 0.43, p = 0.002) were associated with reduced odds of gaining independence in ADLs. After cervical SCI, finger flexion (C8) and elbow extension (C7) recovery translate into greater independence in eating, bladder management, and transfers. These results can be used to design individualized reinnervation plans to reanimate upper limb function and maximize independence in patients with low cervical 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207