REPORT-SCS: minimum reporting standards for spinal cord stimulation studies in spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Electrical spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a promising therapy for recovery of motor and autonomic dysfunctions following spinal cord injury (SCI). Despite the rise in studies using SCS for SCI complications, there are no standard guidelines for reporting SCS parameters in research publications, making it challenging to compare, interpret or reproduce reported effects across experimental studies. Approach. To develop guidelines for minimum reporting standards for SCS parameters in pre-clinical and clinical SCI research, we gathered an international panel of expert clinicians and scientists. Using a Delphi approach, we developed guideline items and surveyed the panel on their level of agreement for each item. Main results. There was strong agreement on 26 of the 29 items identified for establishing minimum reporting standards for SCS studies. The guidelines encompass three major SCS categories: hardware, configuration and current parameters, and the intervention. Significance. Standardized reporting of stimulation parameters will ensure that SCS studies can be easily analyzed, replicated, and interpreted by the scientific community, thereby expanding the SCS knowledge base and fostering transparency in reporting.
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 | 0.543 | 0.656 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".