A Review of Non-Invasive Methods of Monitoring Intracranial Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracranial p ressure (ICP) monitoring is an important aspect of neuro-medicine. ICP is the pressure created by the presence of cerebrospinal fluid. ICP monitoring techniques consist of invasive ( in vivo ) and non-invasive methods ( in vitro ). Modern research aims to eliminate invasive monitoring of ICP and promote non-invasive methods of monitoring ICP. This review aims to assess the current methods and research related to non-invasive monitoring of ICP. Invasive methods of monitoring ICP remain the most accurate methods of measuring ICP but are associated with many complications. This review discusses the current approaches, advantages and disadvantages of these approaches in ICP monitoring. A critical study of the literature review demonstrates that for accuracy and precision, an innovative non-invasive method for ICP monitoring is needed. There is more room for further research and development in ICP monitoring. A universal method of ICP monitoring is needed and not for a class or group of patients. J Neurol Res. 2014;4(1):1-6 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jnr269w
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".