MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016477309 · doi:10.1097/wnp.0b013e3181960453

Continuous EEG Monitoring in Severe Guillain-Barré Syndrome Patients

2009· article· en· W2016477309 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Savard, Eyad Al Thenayan, Loretta Norton, Michael D. Sharpe, G. Bryan Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedationMedicineElectroencephalographyComa (optics)Bispectral indexContinuous monitoringAnesthesiaParalysisGuillain-Barre syndromeIntensive care medicineSurgeryPediatricsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When patients Guillain-Barré syndrome have complete paralysis clinical measures of sedation cannot be applied. In this situation continuous EEG offers a convenient, effective method of monitoring the depth of sedation, using spectral edge frequency (SEF) to quantify EEG activity. The authors report 3 patients with severe Guillain-Barré syndrome managed with sedation aimed at a SEF95 below 4.0 Hz (delta coma), using a subhairline montage with the DATEX bedside EEG module. Two of the patients were easily managed using this system for an average of 16 days, and both were completely amnestic of this period of time with no serious complication. The third one had still some residual muscle activity and SEF was unreliable in this case, so its use was abandoned. Continuous EEG monitoring using SEF is a useful tool to manage sedation in the most severely paralyzed Guillain-Barré syndrome patients. Incorporation of a low-pass filter would be of benefit to remove any residual muscle activity, which confounds the target level of sedation with this method; SEF has theoretical advantages over the bispectral index in this population. Comparative studies of various continuous EEG monitoring methods in such patients should better define their relative effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurophysiologySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207