MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050133374 · doi:10.1017/s031716710000651x

Movements in Brain Death: A Systematic Review

2009· review· en· W2050133374 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gustavo Saposnik, Vincenzo S. Basile, G. Bryan Young

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurosciencePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain death is the irreversible lost of function of the brain including the brainstem. The presence of spontaneous or reflex movements constitutes a challenge for the neurological determination of death. We reviewed historical aspects and practical implications of the presence of spontaneous or reflex movements in individuals with brain death and postulated pathophysiological mechanisms. We identified and reviewed 131 articles on movements in individuals with confirmed diagnosis of brain death using Medline from January 1960 until December 2007, using 'brain death' or 'cerebral death' and 'movements' or 'spinal reflex' as search terms. There was no previous systematic review of the literature on this topic. Plantar withdrawal responses, muscle stretch reflexes, abdominal contractions, Lazarus's sign, respiratory-like movements, among others were described. For the most part, these movements have been considered to be spinal reflexes. These movements are present in as many as 40-50% of heart-beating cadavers. Although limited information is available on the determinants and pathophysiological mechanisms of spinal reflexes, clinicians and health care providers should be aware of them and that they do not preclude the diagnosis of brain death or organ transplantation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations87
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207