MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975288813 · doi:10.2217/fnl.09.22

Blood Pressure Management in Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

2009· article· en· W1975288813 on OpenAlexaff
Yasser Aladdin, Kenneth Butcher

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Neurology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersNovo Nordisk
KeywordsMedicineIntracerebral hemorrhageHematomaBlood pressureBlood flowIntensive care medicineIschemiaIntracranial pressureAnesthesiaCardiologySurgeryInternal medicineSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) results from spontaneous rupture of an intracranial vessel and is associated with high rates of early mortality and long-term morbidity. No surgical or medical intervention has been demonstrated to improve outcome. Acute blood pressure elevation is seen in the majority of patients with ICH and is correlated with poor outcome. Potential, but unproven, mechanisms for this association include facilitation of hematoma expansion as well as perihematomal edema growth. Conversely, the perihematomal region has also been hypothesized to have ischemic properties. Therefore, management of blood pressure in the acute phase lends itself to two competing rationales and the optimal target blood pressure remains unknown. A number of parenchymal and blood-flow imaging techniques have been utilized to improve our understanding of blood flow and metabolism in acute ICH. These studies generally indicate that ischemia is not a major pathophysiological mechanism of secondary injury in ICH. Ultimately, randomized, controlled trials, which are underway, will be required to definitively determine the safety and efficacy of acute blood pressure reduction. It appears most likely that earlier and more aggressive treatment of acute blood pressure will be recommended in the future.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture NeurologySame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207