MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059563488 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100016826

Review of Awakening Agents

2005· review· en· W2059563488 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ryan DeMarchi, Vikas Bansal, Anthony Hung, Karol Wróblewski, Hemi Dua, Sanjeev Sockalingam, Shree Bhalerao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveModafinilMedicineBromocriptineHead injuryElectroconvulsive therapyPsychologyPsychiatryAnesthesiaCognitionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain injuries are a serious burden of illness to Canada and the US. Advances in managing head trauma have allowed more patients to emerge from decreased levels of consciousness and helped them cope with neurocognitive, neurobehavioural, and neuropsychiatric deficits. In this article, we review the current (1986-2002) evidence surrounding the pharmacological management of arousal states and the aforementioned neurological sequelae of head injury in either acute or chronic conditions. This article will review the evidence for the use of psychostimulants (methylphenidate), antidepressants (amitriptyline, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and buproprion), Parkinson's medications (amantadine, bromocriptine, carbidopa/levodopa), anticonvulsants (valproic acid), modafinil (Provigil), lactate, hyperbaric oxygen chamber, electroconvulsive therapy, and transmagnetic stimulation, in patients following a head injury. The review did not include all anticonvulsants, neuroleptics, beta-blockers, benzodiazepines, azospirones or cognitive enhancers. Unfortunately, the quality of the evidence is generally poor, and sometimes conflicting, which in turn results in indecisive guidelines for treating patients. Accepting the inherent flaws in the evidence we feel that this paper may serve as a stepping-stone for future researchers to improve data gathering that targets neurocognitive, neurobehavioural and neuropsychiatric symptoms following a head injury.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
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

Citations42
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207