Correction: Effect of body mass index on survival after spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There was a mistake in the caption of figure 2B as published. The caption "Linearized cumulative survival over time illustrated a protective effect of a higher BMI in a class (dose) dependent manner which occurs early and is long-lasting. Whereas, elevated mortality was observed in patients who were severely underweight (< 17.5 kg/m2, red, n = 12), patients with a BMI of 17.5-30.5 kg/m2 (green, n = 578) or > 30.5 kg/m2 (blue, n = 53) a less negative slope that nearly plateaus after 3 years." was missing "… were protected mirrored by…". The corrected caption of figure 2B appears below. "Linearized cumulative survival over time illustrated a protective effect of a higher BMI in a class (dose) dependent manner which occurs early and is long-lasting. Whereas, elevated mortality was observed in patients who were severely underweight (< 17.5 kg/m2, red, n = 12), patients with a BMI of 17.5-30.5 kg/m2 (green, n = 578) or > 30.5 kg/m2 (blue, n = 53) were protected mirrored by a less negative slope that nearly plateaus after 3 years."The original version of this article has been updated.There was a mistake in the figure 2B as published. The colours in the figure did not match the corresponding BMI-categories in the legend.The corrected figure 2B appears below.The original version of this article has been updated. The original version of this article has been updated.BMI > 30 (purple, n=6/67) BMI of 25-29.9 (beige, n=35/227) BMI of 18-5-24.9 (green, n=52/325) BMI < 18.5 (blue, n=9/24)
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 | 0.004 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.156 | 0.057 |
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".