Active cooling in traumatic brain‐injured patients: a questionable therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypothermia is shown to be beneficial for the outcome after a transient global brain ischaemia through its neuroprotective effect. Whether this is also the case after focal ischaemia, such as following a severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), has been investigated in numerous studies, some of which have shown a tendency towards an improved outcome, whereas others have not been able to demonstrate any beneficial effect. A Cochrane report concluded that the majority of the trials that have already been published have been of low quality, with unclear allocation concealment. If only high-quality trials are considered, TBI patients treated with active cooling were more likely to die, a conclusion supported by a recent high-quality Canadian trial on children. Still, there is a belief that a modified protocol with a shorter time from the accident to the start of active cooling, longer cooling and rewarming time and better control of blood pressure and intracranial pressure would be beneficial for TBI patients. This belief has led to the instigation of new trials in adults and in children, including these types of protocol adjustments. The present review provides a short summary of our present knowledge of the use of active cooling in TBI patients, and presents some tentative explanations as to why active cooling has not been shown to be effective for outcome after TBI. We focus particularly on the compromised circulation of the penumbra zone, which may be further reduced by the stress caused by the difference in thermostat and body temperature and by the hypothermia-induced more frequent use of vasoconstrictors, and by the increased risk of contusional bleedings under hypothermia. We suggest that high fever should be reduced pharmacologically.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".