Brain Death Confirmation: Comparison of Computed Tomographic Angiography With Nuclear Medicine Perfusion Scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: : Brain death is a difficult diagnosis to make, relying primarily on clinical examination. Ancillary tests are used when confounders exist. Nuclear medicine perfusion test (NMPT) is currently the preferred test for confirming brain death. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) may be an alternative test to confirm brain death. It is readily available 24 hours a day at most level I trauma centers and is easy to perform. METHODS: : Patients with a clinical examination consistent with brain death were selected from the intensive care unit at a 550-bed teaching hospital. The patients underwent NMPT followed immediately by CTA. Both studies were read by radiologists blinded to the results of the alternative study. Absence of brain perfusion confirmed brain death. Multiple independent variables were collected on each patient including demographics, core body temperature, apnea challenge, mechanism of injury, timelines, renal function pre- and posttesting, organ donation, and time to procurement. RESULTS: : There were 25 patients enrolled in the study with multiple injury patterns. No false negative exams were identified on CTA when compared with NMPT. Three patients without flow on NMPT showed minimal flow on CTA. Each of these had open skull defects. Sensitivity of CTA was 0.86 and specificity was 1. There was no induced morbidity with regards to renal failure and organ donation. CONCLUSION: : CTA is a quick and efficient test for brain death confirmation. CTA demonstrated no false negative studies. The resolution of CTA seems to have an increased sensitivity for cerebral blood flow. Further studies with larger sample sizes need to be performed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".