Classifying clinical phenotypes of functional recovery for acute traumatic spinal cord injury. An observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Identify patient subgroups with different functional outcomes after SCI and study the association between functional status and initial ISNCSCI components. METHODS: Using CART, we performed an observational cohort study on data from 675 patients enrolled in the Rick-Hansen Registry(RHSCIR) between 2014 and 2019. The outcome was the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) and predictors included AIS, NLI, UEMS, LEMS, pinprick(PPSS), and light touch(LTSS) scores. A temporal validation was performed on data from 62 patients treated between 2020 and 2021 in one of the RHSCIR participating centers. RESULTS: The final CART resulted in four subgroups with increasing totSCIM according to PPSS, LEMS, and UEMS: 1)PPSS < 27(totSCIM = 28.4 ± 16.3); 2)PPSS ≥ 27, LEMS < 1.5, UEMS < 45(totSCIM = 39.5 ± 19.0); 3)PPSS ≥ 27, LEMS < 1.5, UEMS ≥ 45(totSCIM = 57.4 ± 13.8); 4)PPSS ≥ 27, LEMS ≥ 1.5(totSCIM = 66.3 ± 21.7). The validation model performed similarly to the original model. The adjusted R-squared and F-test were respectively 0.556 and 62.2(P-value <0.001) in the development cohort and, 0.520 and 31.9(P-value <0.001) in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: Acknowledging the presence of four characteristic subgroups of patients with distinct phenotypes of functional recovery based on PPSS, LEMS, and UEMS could be used by clinicians early after tSCI to plan rehabilitation and establish realistic goals. An improved sensory function could be key for potentiating motor gains, as a PPSS ≥ 27 was a predictor of a good function.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".