Study protocol for the Outcomes Post-Treatment: Impact on Motor Impairment of Sleep Efficiency in Spinal Cord Injury (OPTIMISE SCI) – a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Spinal cord injury (SCI) has been linked to increased frequencies of sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBDs) (≤50% after paraplegia and ≤90% following tetraplegia). However, SRBDs have been under-recognised and undertreated among individuals with SCI. The OPTIMISE SCI ( O utcomes P ost T reatment: I mpact on M otor I mpairment of S leep E fficiency in SCI) is an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial focused on the effects of the early use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy to treat individuals with moderate-to-severe SRBDs in the acute/subacute stage after SCI. Methods and analysis A total of 44 participants with SCI who are newly diagnosed with moderate-to-severe SRBD are randomised into early CPAP therapy (initiated within the first 8 weeks postinjury) versus delayed CPAP therapy (initiated at 6 months postinjury). Participants with no/mild SRBDs are included in the control group (n=22). Primary outcome measures include neurological and functional recovery after SCI. Ethics and dissemination The protocol for this randomised clinical trial (RCT) raised an interesting discussion with our research ethics board about delaying CPAP therapy by 3 months when a participant is diagnosed with moderate-to-severe SRBD. Given that the current standard of care does not include screening for SRBDs in individuals who are admitted for spinal cord rehabilitation, most individuals are screened for SRBDs during the chronic stage post-SCI, which represents a greater delay in the diagnosis and treatment of SRBDs in this population. Because the potential impact of the OPTIMISE SCI trial on the current standard of care outweighs the risk of delaying CPAP therapy by 3 months, this trial protocol was approved. The dissemination plan includes presentations at scientific meetings and publication of the results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT05473689 ).
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 | 0.044 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.151 | 0.028 |
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".