Monitoring intracranial pressure in patients with malignant middle cerebral artery infarction: is it useful?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is increasingly used in the treatment of patients with malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarction. However, neurological deterioration may exist independent from intracranial hypertension. This study aimed to present the findings of continuous ICP monitoring in a cohort of patients with malignant MCA infarction and to correlate these findings with clinical and radiological features. METHODS: The authors studied a prospective cohort of 25 patients with malignant MCA infarction consecutively admitted to the neurotrauma intensive care unit of the Vall d'Hebron University Hospital between March 2002 and September 2006. The patients were treated using a combined protocol of initial moderate hypothermia and hemicraniectomy. The latter was performed when patients showed a midline shift (MLS) > or = 5 mm or ICP > 20 mm Hg. Six patients had an MLS > or = 5 mm on the first CT scan and underwent surgery without prior ICP monitoring. This study focuses on the subgroup of 19 patients who underwent intraparenchymatous ICP monitoring before surgery. RESULTS: Intracranial pressure readings were evaluated and correlated with pupillary abnormalities, MLS, and ischemic tissue volume. In 12 of the 19 patients, ICP values were always < or = 20 mm Hg, despite a mean (+/- SD) MLS of 6.7 +/- 2 mm and a mean ischemic tissue volume of 241.3 +/- 83 cm(3). In 2 patients with anisocoria, ICP values were also normal. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a malignant MCA infarction, pupillary abnormalities and severe brainstem compression may be present despite normal ICP values. Therefore, continuous ICP monitoring cannot substitute for close clinical and radiological follow-up in the management of these patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".