ArticleJournal of neurology2026
A data-driven approach to define the stages and patterns of neurological recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecovery after spinal cord injury (SCI) follows a complex and variable trajectory, yet the field lacks clear, data-driven definitions of the temporal stages of recovery. This study aimed to model the trajectory of recovery after SCI and define distinct post-injury phases based on real-world clinical data.
methodsWe analyzed longitudinal data from 4407 individuals with traumatic SCI enrolled in the European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI). Neurological improvement was quantified using the Integrated Neurological Change Score (INCS). Functional recovery was assessed using the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) and a derived measure of hand motor function based on motor scores of the C6, C8, and T1 myotomes. Longitudinal recovery trajectories were modeled using random forest regression, locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS), and neural networks. Lastly, latent class mixed models (LCMM) were employed to identify subgroups with distinct recovery profiles.
resultsAcross all models, neurological recovery followed a four-stage sigmoidal pattern: an acute phase (up to ∼2 weeks post-injury) with minimal change; a transition phase (∼2 to 9-11 weeks) marked by substantial neurological change; a pre-chronic phase (∼10 weeks to 7-8 months) characterized by ongoing but non-linear recovery; and a chronic phase (beyond ∼7-8 months) in which recovery plateaued. Neurological improvement consistently preceded functional gains captured by SCIM and hand motor strength. Latent class analysis identified four distinct recovery profiles: class 1 (marked recovery), classes 2 and 3 (moderate recovery), and class 4 (minimal to no recovery). Notably, despite significant variability in the magnitude of lower extremity recovery across classes, the timing of the transition phase was remarkably consistent, aligning with the population-level window of approximately 10-11 weeks post-injury.
conclusionsThe majority of neurological and functional improvement occurs within the first ∼10 weeks post-injury. These findings align with the concept of a period of heightened neuroplasticity and provide a data-driven framework for timing assessments and interventions in SCI recovery.
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.