ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Verification of the Accuracy of Cervical Spinal Cord Injury Prognosis Prediction Using Clinical Data-Based Artificial Neural Networks.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning-Based Prognostic Models for Functional Outcomes in Spinal Cord Injury: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Determination of Diagnosis and Prognosis in Spinal Cord Injury Using Machine Learning.Korean journal of neurotrauma · 2025Review
- Review
- Microglial TREM2 and cognitive impairment: insights from Alzheimer's disease with implications for spinal cord injury and AI-assisted therapeutics.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2025Review
- Harnessing Artificial Neural Networks for Spinal Cord Injury Prognosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), we need to make accurate prognostic predictions in the acute phase for more effective rehabilitation. We hypothesized that a multivariate prognosis would be useful for patients with cervical SCI.
methodsWe made two predictive models using Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). We adopted MLR as a conventional predictive model. Both models were created using the same 20 clinical parameters of the acute phase data at the time of admission. The prediction results were classified by the ASIA Impairment Scale. The training data consisted of 60 cases, and prognosis prediction was performed for 20 future cases (test cohort). All patients were treated in the Spinal Injuries Center (SIC) in Fukuoka, Japan.
resultsA total of 16 out of 20 cases were predictable. The correct answer rate of MLR was 31.3%, while the rate of ANNs was 75.0% (number of correct answers: 12).
conclusionWe were able to predict the prognosis of patients with cervical SCI from acute clinical data using ANNs. Performing effective rehabilitation based on this prediction will improve the patient's quality of life after discharge. Although there is room for improvement, ANNs are useful as a prognostic tool for patients with cervical SCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.