Acute management of acquired brain injury Part III: An evidence-based review of interventions used to promote arousal from coma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To review the literature regarding techniques used to promote arousal from coma following an acquired brain injury. MAIN OUTCOMES: A literature search of multiple databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) and hand searched articles covering the years 1980-2008 was performed. Peer reviewed articles were assessed for methodological quality using the PEDro scoring system for randomized controlled trials and the Downs and Black tool for RCTs and non-randomized trials. Levels of evidence were assigned and recommendations were made. RESULTS: Research into coma arousal has generally focused on the stimulation of neural pathways responsible for arousal. These pathways have been targeted using pharmacological and non-pharmacological techniques. This review reports the evidence surrounding agents targeting dopamine pathways (amantadine, bromocriptine and levodopa), sensory stimulation, music therapy and median nerve electrical stimulation. Each of these interventions has shown some degree of benefit in improving consciousness, but further research is necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous studies, strong evidence was only found for one intervention (Amantadine use in children) and this was based on a single study. However, each of the interventions showed promise in some aspect of arousal and warrant further study. More methodologically rigorous study is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".