MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404705473 · doi:10.46292/sci24-00049

International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury: Case Examples Reinforcing Concepts From the 2019 Revision

2024· article· en· W4404705473 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany Snider, Steven Kirshblum, R. Rupp, Christian Schuld, Fin Biering‐Sørensen, Stephen P. Burns, James D. Guest, Linda Jones, Andrei V. Krassioukov, Gianna M. Rodriguez, Mary Schmidt Read, Keith E. Tansey, Kristen Walden

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsPraxis Spinal Cord InstituteInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthSpinal cordPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyRehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) is the most widely accepted system for characterizing sensorimotor impairments after spinal cord injury (SCI). There have been a number of ISNCSCI revisions, with the most recent edition published in 2019. Newer concepts, including the revised definitions of the zones of partial preservation (ZPPs) and documentation of non-SCI conditions, require training and practice for successful utilization. The International Standards Committee developed an ISNCSCI workbook of 26 practice cases, each with detailed explanations of the correct classification components. In this article, we present seven cases, which were selected from the workbook to reinforce the changes implemented in 2019. Methods: Hypothetical ISNCSCI cases were created to illustrate important classification rules, definitions, and nuances. All cases were reviewed by members of the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) International Standards Committee, and if any discrepancies were identified, they were discussed until a consensus was reached. To confirm agreement, cases were also entered into online algorithms, which are compliant with the 2019 ISNCSCI revision. The seven cases in this article highlight newer classification concepts and include a discussion of key elements. Cases: Each case reinforces the revised definitions of the ZPPs, such as the applicability of sensory ZPPs in all injuries without sensory sacral sparing and applicability of motor ZPPs in all injuries without voluntary anal contraction (VAC). Non-SCI-related impairments and their impact on the classification are reviewed in Cases 4-7. Conclusion: The seven cases presented in this article feature key concepts from the 2019 ISNCSCI revision. These cases, as well as the full ISNCSCI workbook, can serve as valuable training tools to improve classification accuracy.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.380 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Spinal Cord Injury RehabilitationSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207