MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dissecting brain death

2008· letter· en· W2022839212 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Saposnik, David G. Muñoz

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perhaps no subject has generated more debate in medicine than the diagnosis of brain death (BD). Writers, philosophers, ethicists, and physicians have focused on different aspects of BD. Nevertheless, no significant advances in the understanding of pathophysiologic mechanisms in BD have occurred over the last decade. American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Practice Parameters defined BD as “the irreversible loss of function of the entire brain, including the brainstem” with three specific criteria: 1) unresponsiveness, 2) absent brainstem reflexes, and 3) apnea. In addition to these clinical criteria, there are important prerequisites: a) presence of clinical or neuroimaging evidence of acute CNS catastrophe severe enough to explain the condition, b) core temperature greater than 32°C (90°F), c) no drug intoxication or poisoning, and d) absence of confounding medical conditions such as severe electrolyte, acid-base, or endocrine disturbances.1 In this issue of Neurology ®, Wijdicks and Pfeifer2 offer a new look at an old condition and attempt to provide an analysis of the neuropathologic features that correlate with a clinical diagnosis of BD. They reviewed macroscopic and microscopic brain pathology for ischemic neuronal damage in 41 patients …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicOrgan Donation and Transplantation→French-language works237,207→