MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972523318 · doi:10.1159/000094155

Hypothermia Pediatric Head Injury Trial: The Value of a Pretrial Clinical Evaluation Phase

2006· article· en· W1972523318 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMcMaster Children's HospitalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioSickKids FoundationUniversity of GuelphHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHead injuryMedicineHypothermiaClinical trialPsychologyNeuroscienceAnesthesiaInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The utility of a pretrial clinical evaluation or run-in phase prior to conducting trials of complex interventions such as hypothermia therapy following severe traumatic brain injury in children and adolescents has not been established. METHODS: The primary objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the ability of investigators to adhere to the clinical protocols of care including the cooling and rewarming procedures as well as management guidelines in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale<or=8) treated with 24 h of hypothermia therapy. A secondary objective was to evaluate the ability of study research assistants to complete the study case report form using a procedures manual. The study was conducted at 18 sites in Canada, the United Kingdom and France prior to proceeding to a randomized controlled trial (RCT). After 2 patients were enrolled at each center, an independent clinical evaluation committee examined the process of care and the completeness of data collection. Centers were permitted to enroll patients in the RCT once they met pre-established adherence criteria. RESULTS: Seventeen of the 18 centers completed the pretrial clinical evaluation phase demonstrating compliance with study procedures and proceeded to an RCT of hypothermia therapy. One center enrolled only 1 patient in the pretrial clinical evaluation phase due to small numbers of patients with traumatic brain injury, and therefore, did not proceed to the RCT. Three centers were required to enroll more than 2 patients in the pretrial clinical evaluation phase prior to proceeding to the RCT because of problems with adherence to the clinical protocols at two centers and the training of new study personnel at another center. Of the 39 patients enrolled during the pretrial clinical evaluation phase, 8 (20.5%) died and 22 (62.9%) had a good outcome defined as normal, mild or moderate disability assessed using the Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category score at 6 months following injury. DISCUSSION: The pretrial clinical evaluation phase was useful to ensure compliance with complex hypothermia therapy and consensus-based clinical management guidelines of care successfully implemented across 17 of 18 centers. This study maneuver allowed us to complete a subsequent RCT in 225 children following severe traumatic brain injury.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it