MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067048828 · doi:10.4103/1658-354x.130746

Specific intensive care management of patients with traumatic brain injury: Present and future

2014· review· en· W2067048828 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTraumatic brain injuryIntensive care medicineGuidelineScope (computer science)Clinical trialPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major global problem and affects approximately 10 million peoples annually; therefore has a substantial impact on the health-care system throughout the world. In this article, we have summarized various aspects of specific intensive care management in patients with TBI including the emerging evidence mainly after the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) 2007 and also highlighted the scope of the future therapies. This review has involved the relevant clinical trials and reviews (from 1 January 2007 to 31 March 2013), which specifically discussed about the topic. Though, BTF guideline based management strategies could provide standardized protocols for the management of patients with TBI and have some promising effects on mortality and morbidity; there is still need of inclusion of many suggestions based on various published after 2007. The main focus of majority of these trials remained to prevent or to treat the secondary brain injury. The future therapy will be directed to treat injured neurons and may benefit the outcome. There is also urgent need to develop some good prognostic indicators as well.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.267 · 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