Early versus late surgical decompression in acute traumatic spinal cord injury: does it impact the quality of life?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Pre-specified secondary endpoint analysis from a prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate whether early surgical decompression (≤12 h) improves quality of life (QOL) compared to late surgical decompression (>12 h and <14 days) in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI). SETTING: European multicentre study. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Prospective, Observational European Multicentre study on the efficacy of acute surgical decompression after tSCI (SCI-POEM). Patients were grouped by decompression timing. Neurological status was assessed using the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI). QOL was assessed at 6 and 12 months post-injury using the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF). RESULTS: The early group (n = 126) had greater baseline neurological impairment than the late group (n = 100). Despite these imbalances, unadjusted analysis showed no significant differences between groups in WHOQOL-BREF domains at one year post-injury (physical: 65.2 vs. 65.6, p = 0.868; psychological: 68.0 vs. 68.6, p = 0.806; social: 69.8 vs. 67.4, p = 0.397; environmental: 75.2 vs. 71.4, p = 0.083). A multivariate mixed model revealed no significant differences in WHOQOL-BREF domains between early and late groups one year post-injury (physical: 65.7 vs. 63.8, p = 1.000; psychological: 68.5 vs. 66.9, p = 1.000; social: 72.8 vs. 68.0, p = 1.000; environmental: 80.1 vs. 74.7, p = 0.209). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in WHOQOL-BREF domain scores were observed between early and late surgical decompression following acute tSCI in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. QOL outcomes provide improved understanding of therapeutic interventions' impact on patients' lives and should be incorporated into evaluations of early decompression efficacy. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01674764.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".