Effects of central-peripheral FMS on urinary retention after spinal cord injury: a pilot randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Urinary retention is a common complication of spinal cord injury (SCI), which can seriously affect the quality of life of patients. Function magnetic stimulation (FMS) has been widely used in the recovery of neurological function in various diseases, but its application in urinary retention after SCI remains unclear. Therefore, we would like to conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to observe the feasible effect of FMS on urinary retention after SCI, to explore its mechanism of action. Method/design: This is a single-center pilot RCT, which 60 patients with urinary retention after SCI will be selected, numbered in chronological order of hospitalization, and randomly divided into 4 groups using the random number table method, Groups A (control group), Group B, Group C, and Group D; Each group will receive the same conventional rehabilitation treatment. The whole intervention period 2 weeks and will be evaluated before and after treatment to collect data on residual bladder volume, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), changes in voiding condition, changes in surface electromyography (SEMG) values of pelvic floor muscle and quality of life scores (QoL). Study hypothesis: We hypothesized that FMS for the treatment of urinary retention after SCI would have a significant clinical feasible effect;and that peripheral combined with central FMS would be more effective than single-site FMS for the treatment of urinary retention after SCI. Objective: (1) To illustrate the clinical effectiveness of FMS in the treatment of urinary retention after SCI and to provide a new treatment modality for the patients; (2) Comparison of the differences in the efficacy of central and peripheral single FMS and combined central and peripheral FMS in the treatment of urinary retention after SCI; (3) To explore the central control mechanisms of bladder function recovery after SCI in conjunction with changes in fNIRS. Trial registration: This study has been ethically approved by the Scientific and Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical university with approval number (LLSC-2022112401). It has been registered with the China Clinical Trials Registry with the registration number: ChiCTR2200067143.
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 | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.003 |
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".