ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2025
Machine learning predicts improvement of functional outcomes in spinal cord injury patients after inpatient rehabilitation.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Novel Technology and the Internet of Medical Things.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Rebuilding spinal circuit function after spinal cord injury through a patient-specific interneuron precision model.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Musculoskeletal Digital Therapeutics and Digital Health Rehabilitation: A Global Paradigm Shift in Orthopedic Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Spinal cord injury (SCI) presents a significant burden to patients, families, and the healthcare system. The ability to accurately predict functional outcomes for SCI patients is essential for optimizing rehabilitation strategies, guiding patient and family decision making, and improving patient care. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 589 SCI patients admitted to a single acute rehabilitation facility and used the dataset to train advanced machine learning algorithms to predict patients' rehabilitation outcomes. The primary outcome was the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) score at discharge, reflecting the level of independence achieved by patients after comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation. Results: Tree-based algorithms, particularly Random Forest (RF) and XGBoost, significantly outperformed traditional statistical models and Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) in predicting discharge FIM scores. The RF model exhibited the highest predictive accuracy, with an R-squared value of 0.90 and a Mean Squared Error (MSE) of 0.29 on the training dataset, while achieving 0.52 R-squared and 1.37 MSE on the test dataset. The XGBoost model also demonstrated strong performance, with an R-squared value of 0.74 and an MSE of 0.75 on the training dataset, and 0.51 R-squared with 1.39 MSE on the test dataset. Our analysis identified key predictors of rehabilitation outcomes, including the initial FIM scores and specific demographic factors such as level of injury and prehospital living settings. The study also highlighted the superior ability of tree-based models to capture the complex, non-linear relationships between variables that impact recovery in SCI patients. Discussion: This research underscores the potential of machine learning models to enhance the accuracy of outcome predictions in SCI rehabilitation. The findings support the integration of these advanced predictive tools in clinical settings to better guide decision making for patients and families, tailor rehabilitation plans, allocate resources efficiently, and ultimately improve patient outcomes.
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.