MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065777340 · doi:10.1097/aco.0b013e3283466b6b

Pediatric traumatic brain injury: an update

2011· review· en· W2065777340 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Émériaud, Géraldine Pettersen, Bruno Ozanne

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTraumatic brain injuryNeurointensive careTherapeutic modalitiesIntensive care medicineHyperventilationModalitiesDecompressive craniectomyHypothermiaPhysical therapyAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The developing brain is particularly vulnerable to traumatic brain injury (TBI), leading to frequent disability or death. This article is an update of the pediatric specificities of TBI management. RECENT FINDINGS: We review the evidences with regards to general management and therapeutic goals to prevent secondary injuries in pediatric TBI patients. Recent controversies in neurocritical care, such as multimodal neuromonitoring, hyperventilation, barbiturate coma, hypothermia, and decompressive surgery, are also highlighted. SUMMARY: Many therapeutic modalities in pediatric TBI have a low level of evidence. Further research is needed to establish clear resuscitation goals. Universal objectives may not be suitable for all patients; intensive neuromonitoring may help in identifying individual therapeutic goals and guiding the selection of treatments.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in AnaesthesiologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207