MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979628139 · doi:10.1159/000260910

Bilateral Decompressive Craniectomy for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension in a Child with Severe ITP-Related Intracerebral Haemorrhage

2009· article· en· W1979628139 on OpenAlexaff
Adrianna Ranger, Artur Szymczak, Douglas R. Fraser, Marina I. Salvadori, Lawrence Jardine

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Neurosurgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDecompressive craniectomyIntracranial pressureRefractory (planetary science)SurgeryRaised intracranial pressureThrombocytopenic purpuraHemiparesisAnesthesiaLevel of consciousnessTraumatic brain injuryInternal medicineLesion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a 13-month-old infant who developed acutely elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) as a result of a spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH), secondary to idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). Her ICP remained severely elevated despite aggressive medical measures, with persistent obtundation, right hemiparesis and a dilated left pupil. Bilateral decompressive craniectomies (DCs) were performed, which resulted in a rapid decline in ICP. Ultimately, the patient regained consciousness and went on to complete neurological recovery. Tragically, she died of non-neurological, ITP-related complications 9 months later. In our review, we identified no other instances of bilateral DCs reported in the management of an infant with ITP and/or an ICH. We addressed three central questions: (1) Is there any value of DCs in children, and especially in infants, with elevated ICP? (2) Is there any value of DCs in the setting of non-traumatic ICH? And (3) is there any rationale for the use of bilateral versus unilateral DCs?

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric NeurosurgerySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207