Is the Level of Consent to a National Research Registry Associated With Patient Outcomes After Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury? A Population-Based Study From the Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the impact of consenting to the Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry on outcomes: acute length of stay, in-hospital mortality, medical complications (pressure injuries and pneumonia), and the final discharge destination following a spinal cord injury using the national Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry dataset. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry participant data from 2014 to 2019. Participants approached for enrollment were grouped into 1) PC: provided full consent including community follow-up interviews, 2) DWC: declined community follow-up interviews but accepted minimal data collection that may include initial/final interviews and/or those who later withdrew consent, and 3) DC: declined consent to any participation. As no data was collected for the DC group, descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable regression analysis was limited to the PC and DWC groups. RESULTS: Of 2811 participants, 2101 (74.7%) were PC, 553 (19.7%) were DWC, and 157 (5.6%) were DC. DWC participants had significantly longer acute length of stay, more acute pneumonias/pressure injuries, and were less likely to be discharged home than PC participants. All these associations-except pneumonia-remained significant in the multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Not participating fully in Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry was associated with more complications and longer hospital stays.
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 | 0.011 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".