The revised zone of partial preservation (ZPP) in the 2019 International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury: ZPP applicability in incomplete injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Consensus process. OBJECTIVES: To provide a reference for the Zone(s) of Partial Preservation (ZPP) in the 2019 International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) and analyze the initial impact of applicability of the revised ZPPs. Revisions include the use of ZPPs in selected incomplete injuries (in addition to prior use in sensorimotor complete injuries). Specifically, the revised motor ZPPs are applicable bilaterally in injuries with absent voluntary anal contraction (VAC) and the revised sensory ZPP for a given side is applicable if deep anal pressure (DAP), light touch and pin prick sensation in S4-5 are absent on that side. SETTING: Committee with 16 ISNCSCI experts and datasets from the European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI). METHODS: Occurrence frequencies of applicable ZPPs were determined in an EMSCI cohort consisting of two ISNCSCI examinations from 665 individuals with traumatic SCI. RESULTS: Motor ZPPs were derived in 35.2% of all datasets of incomplete injuries, while sensory ZPPs are much less frequent (1.0%). Motor ZPPs are applicable in all American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) B datasets (mean ZPP length: 0.9 ± 1.0 segments), in 55.4% of all AIS C datasets (ZPP length: 11.8 ± 8.2 segments) and in 9.9% of the AIS D datasets (ZPP length: 15.4 ± 7.9 segments). CONCLUSIONS: The revised ZPP allows for determining motor ZPPs in approximately 1/3 of all incomplete injuries. The broadened applicability enables the use of ZPPs beyond complete injuries for complementary description of residual functions in more individuals. SPONSORSHIP: N/A.
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 | 0.046 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".