German Transcreation of the International Standards to Document Remaining Autonomic Function After Spinal Cord Injury (Second Edition): A Feasibility Study in Individuals With Subacute Phase Spinal Cord Injury/Disease (SCI/D)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In May 2021, the second edition of International Standards to document remaining Autonomic Function after Spinal Cord Injury (ISAFSCI) was published. Objectives: To transcreate the 2021 ISAFSCI (2nd ed.) to German and to assess its feasibility in the subacute phase following spinal cord injury/disease (SCI/D). Methods: Transcreation to German was performed by an interdisciplinary team of native English and German speakers. We screened individuals with SCI/D for eligibility (i.e., age ≥18 years; >3 months following SCI/D) between August 2021 and January 2022. To minimize the time for the assessment, we first interviewed participants in a supine position before conducting the clinical examination. We assessed participants thrice within 14 days using a randomized sequence of assessors, and we assessed SCI/D according to the International Standards for Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) grading of the SCI/D, including the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS). Time of ISAFSCI assessments (median and quartiles) and its completeness (%) were calculated. Results: = 7), respectively. Median time to complete an assessment was 39 minutes (Q1: 32, Q3: 46). Conclusion: The German version of the ISAFSCI second edition is feasible to perform in a subacute cohort. However, given the subacute stage following SCI, certain limitations must be acknowledged. Many participants have not yet engaged in sexual activity, which limits the evaluation of sexual function.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".