Hemodynamic Parameters and Timing of Surgical Decompression in Acute Cervical Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between the severity of cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] grade), presence of neurogenic shock, and timing of surgical intervention. This is a post-hoc analysis from the Sygen multicenter randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) data were collected when patients were first assessed in the emergency room (Time A) and at the time of randomization (Time B). Individuals were subdivided by ASIA grade and by the level of the systolic BP (SBP). RESULTS: Only individuals with cervical SCI from the Sygen trial (n = 577) were evaluated. Severe complete SCI (ASIA grade = A) was established in 57% of these patients. A total of 74 (13%) patients with neurogenic shock (SBP < 90 mmHg) at Time A were identified. The SBP increased significantly from Time A to Time B (P < 0.0001). The median time from SCI to surgical intervention, for ASIA A, was 80.9 hours for patients with initial SBP < 90 mmHg and 58 hours for patients with initial SBP > or = 90 mmHg (P = 0.025). Multivariable analysis after adjusting for confounders revealed a statistically significant difference in the time to surgical intervention based on SBP for ASIA A (P = 0.026), yet not for ASIA B or C/D. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of neurogenic shock was associated with a delay in the timing of surgical intervention in patients with cervical SCI. Detailed evaluation of autonomic dysfunctions following SCI including cardiovascular instability could improve our understanding of the complexities of clinical presentations and possible neurological outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".