Is this Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Significant? A National Survey of Neurosurgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previously all subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients were admitted, whereas now patients with angiography may be discharged. OBJECTIVE: To survey neurosurgeons to determine current practice and what constitutes a clinically significant subarachnoid hemorrhage. METHODS: We surveyed all neurosurgeons listed in the Canadian Medical Directory. We used a modified Dillman technique with up to five mailed surveys plus a pre-notification letter. Neurosurgeons rated the significance of 13 scenarios of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Scenarios varied from aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage to patients with isolated xanthochromia in cerebrospinal fluid. Each scenario was rated for clinical significance using a 5-point scale [1(always) to 5(never)]. RESULTS: Of the 224 surveyed, 115 neurosurgeons responded. Scenarios with aneurysms requiring intervention, arteriovenous malformations, death or any surgical intervention all had median responses of 1 (IQR 1, 1). Scenarios having xanthochromia and few red blood cells in cerebrospinal fluid with negative computerized tomogram (CT) and angiography had median responses of 3 (IQR 1, 4). Scenarios with perimesencephalic pattern on CT with negative angiography had median of 3 (IQR 2, 4). Scenarios where patient is discharged from the emergency department had median of 4 (IQR 3, 5). CONCLUSION: Subarachnoid hemorrhages due to aneurysms or arteriovenous malformations causing death or requiring surgical intervention are always clinically significant. Other types of nonaneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhages had inconsistent ratings for clinical significance. These survey results highlight the need for further discussions to standardize the diagnosis of what constitutes a clinically significant subarachnoid hemorrhage and what care should be afforded to 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".