MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408677626 · doi:10.21037/jss-24-64

A Canadian national survey of the medical management of acute traumatic spinal cord injury

2025· article· en· W4408677626 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spine Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injurySpinal cordPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The management of patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) remains a significant challenge, with ongoing debate surrounding the optimal targets for mean arterial pressure (MAP), spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP), and hemoglobin (Hb) transfusion thresholds. This study aimed to identify areas of consensus and discordance in the management strategies employed by Canadian healthcare providers caring for patients with acute SCI. Methods: A comprehensive multi-stage survey was developed and administered to healthcare providers actively involved in the management of acute SCI, including neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, intensive care specialists, trauma surgeons, and emergency medicine physicians. The survey assessed preferences related to MAP, SCPP, and Hb transfusion thresholds, as well as opinions on the need for future research in this area. Results: A total of 71 healthcare providers completed the survey, with a 100% completion rate. The majority of participants were from neurosurgery (38.1%), intensive care (31.0%), and orthopedics (25.4%). While 75.7% of participants routinely set a MAP target, only 7.1% set an SCPP target. The most common Hb transfusion threshold was <7 g/dL (50.7%) for patients with neurological deficits, with the majority (62.3%) maintaining this threshold for all patients. A significant proportion (15.9%) would consider transfusing based on clinical status alone, regardless of the Hb level. Two-thirds of participants (66.7%) believed the current equipoise in transfusion targets warrants a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and 79.5% of these respondents indicated a willingness to enroll patients. Conclusions: This survey highlights the significant variability in the management of acute traumatic SCI, particularly regarding MAP, SCPP, and Hb transfusion thresholds among Canadian healthcare providers. The findings underscore the need for the development of evidence-based guidelines and the implementation of multicenter RCTs to establish best practices and optimize the care of this complex patient population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.340 · 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