Cardiovascular safety of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in cervical spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated whether cervical transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) in conjunction with rehabilitation on upper extremity function alters blood pressure regulation in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury. This study is a secondary analysis of the Up-LIFT trial, a prospective single-arm multicenter trial designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tSCS in conjunction with rehabilitation (tSCS + rehab) on upper extremity function in individuals with chronic cervical spinal cord injury. Utilizing this large data set obtained from 60 individuals across 14 international sites, we compared blood pressure and heart rate measurements obtained before, during and after each training session during both the wash-in Rehab alone period and the tSCS + rehab period of the trial. Blood pressure and heart rate were recorded during each session throughout the protocol in all participants. Sessions of tSCS + rehab did not cause significant changes in blood pressure or heart rate compared to Rehab alone (p > 0.05). Further, blood pressure medications did not have an effect on these cardiovascular responses to tSCS (p > 0.05). This study supports the safety profile of cervical tSCS paired with rehabilitation in individuals with cervical spinal cord injury. The lack of adverse effects on blood pressure and heart rate during the intervention, together with the previously reported clinically meaningful improvements in upper extremity strength and function strongly supports the utility of tSCS in this patient population. Further work is required to elucidate potential long-term effects of targeted tSCS on cardiovascular function in people with spinal cord injury.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".