MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400642798 · doi:10.3390/jcm13144101

Advances and Challenges in Spinal Cord Injury Treatments

2024· review· en· W4400642798 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Ali Alvi, Karlo M. Pedro, Ayesha Quddusi, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injurySpinal cordIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a debilitating condition that is associated with long-term physical and functional disability. Our understanding of the pathogenesis of SCI has evolved significantly over the past three decades. In parallel, significant advances have been made in optimizing the management of patients with SCI. Early surgical decompression, adequate bony decompression and expansile duraplasty are surgical strategies that may improve neurological and functional outcomes in patients with SCI. Furthermore, advances in the non-surgical management of SCI have been made, including optimization of hemodynamic management in the critical care setting. Several promising therapies have also been investigated in pre-clinical studies, with some being translated into clinical trials. Given the recent interest in advancing precision medicine, several investigations have been performed to delineate the role of imaging, cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) and serum biomarkers in predicting outcomes and curating individualized treatment plans for SCI patients. Finally, technological advancements in biomechanics and bioengineering have also found a role in SCI management in the form of neuromodulation and brain-computer interfaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.597
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.065 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207