Intracranial pressure monitoring and outcomes after traumatic brain injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Uncontrolled intracranial hypertension after traumatic brain injury (TBI) contributes significantly to the death rate and to poor functional outcome. There is no evidence that intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring alters the outcome of TBI. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that insertion of ICP monitors in patients who have TBI is not associated with a decrease in the death rate. DESIGN: Study of case records. METHODS: The data files from the Ontario Trauma Registry from 1989 to 1995 were examined. Included were all cases with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 12 from the 14 trauma centres in Ontario. Cases identifying a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale score in the head region (MAIS head) greater than 3 were selected for further analysis. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between ICP and death. RESULTS: Of 9001 registered cases of TBI, an MAIS head greater than 3 was recorded in 5507. Of these patients, 541 (66.8% male, mean age 34.1 years) had an ICP monitor inserted. Their average ISS was 33.4 and 71.7% survived. There was wide variation among the institutions in the rate of insertion of ICP monitors in these patients (ranging from 0.4% to over 20%). Univariate logistic regression indicated that increased MAIS head, ISS, penetrating trauma and the insertion of an ICP monitor were each associated with an increased death rate. However, multivariate analyses controlling for MAIS head, ISS and injury mechanism indicated that ICP monitoring was associated with significantly improved survival (p < 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: ICP monitor insertion rates vary widely in Ontario's trauma hospitals. The insertion of an ICP monitor is associated with a statistically significant decrease in death rate among patients with severe TBI. This finding strongly supports the need for a prospective randomized trial of management protocols, including ICP monitoring, in patients with severe TBI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".