Prediction of segmental motor outcomes in traumatic spinal cord injury: Advances beyond sum scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neurological and functional recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is highly challenged by the level of the lesion and the high heterogeneity in severity (different degrees of in/complete SCI) and spinal cord syndromes (hemi-, ant-, central-, and posterior cord). So far outcome predictions in clinical trials are limited in targeting sum motor scores of the upper (UEMS) and lower limb (LEMS) while neglecting that the distribution of motor function is essential for functional outcomes. The development of data-driven prediction models of detailed segmental motor recovery for all spinal segments from the level of lesion towards the lowest motor segments will improve the design of rehabilitation programs and the sensitivity of clinical trials. METHODS: This study used acute-phase International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI exams to forecast 6-month recovery of segmental motor scores as the primary evaluation endpoint. Secondary endpoints included severity grade improvement, independent walking, and self-care ability. Different similarity metrics were explored for k-nearest neighbor (kNN) matching within 1267 patients from the European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury before validation in 411 patients from the Sygen trial. The kNN performance was compared to linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: = 0.92). We deploy the final historic control model as a web tool for easy user interaction (https://hicsci.ethz.ch/). DISCUSSION: Our approach is the first to provide predictions across all motor segments independent of the level and severity of SCI. We provide a machine learning concept that is highly interpretable, i.e. the prediction formation process is transparent, that has been validated across European and American data sets, and provides reliable and validated algorithms to incorporate external control data to increase sensitivity and feasibility of multinational clinical trials.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".