MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061085330 · doi:10.1177/1073858412474845

Analysis of Intracranial Pressure

2013· review· en· W2061085330 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Di Ieva, Erika Schmitz, Michael D. Cusimano

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Neuroscientist · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntracranial pressureWaveformComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Dimension (graph theory)Traumatic brain injuryData scienceNonlinear systemArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMedicineMathematicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP) is an important tool in medicine for its ability to portray the brain's compliance status. The bedside monitor displays the ICP waveform and intermittent mean values to guide physicians in the management of patients, particularly those having sustained a traumatic brain injury. Researchers in the fields of engineering and physics have investigated various mathematical analysis techniques applicable to the waveform in order to extract additional diagnostic and prognostic information, although they largely remain limited to research applications. The purpose of this review is to present the current techniques used to monitor and interpret ICP and explore the potential of using advanced mathematical techniques to provide information about system perturbations from states of homeostasis. We discuss the limits of each proposed technique and we propose that nonlinear analysis could be a reliable approach to describe ICP signals over time, with the fractal dimension as a potential predictive clinically meaningful biomarker. Our goal is to stimulate translational research that can move modern analysis of ICP using these techniques into widespread practical use, and to investigate to the clinical utility of a tool capable of simplifying multiple variables obtained from various sensors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe NeuroscientistSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207