MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of single mannitol bolus in intracerebral hemorrhage

2007· article· en· W2089043793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
U. K. Misra, Jayantee Kalita, Atulabh Vajpayee, R. V. Phadke, A. Hadique, V. Savlani

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neurology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMannitolSSS*AnesthesiaGlasgow Coma ScaleIntracerebral hemorrhageBolus (digestion)SurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of existing controversy about use of mannitol in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) this open exploratory trial with blinded outcome assessment of single mannitol bolus in ICH was undertaken. CT proven primary supratentorial ICH patients having midline shift of > or =3 mm were randomized into 20% mannitol (1.5 g/kg) and control groups. Clinical evaluation included Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score, Canadian Neurological scale (CNS) score, pupils, breathing, extensor posturing and contra-lateral pyramidal signs. On cranial MRI horizontal (HS), superior sagittal sinus to pontomesencephalic junction (SSS-PMJ) distance and edema hematoma complex were measured. Twelve patients each were in mannitol and control groups. The age, sex, GCS score, CNS score, pupillary asymmetry, contra-lateral pyramidal signs, HS and SSS-PMJ distance in mannitol and control groups did not differ significantly. Mannitol infusion resulted clinical improvement in five patients, which lasted for 30-60 min. HS and SSS-PMJ distance in mannitol and control groups did not change at 30 or 60 min from the baseline. The change in HS and SSS-PMJ distance were also not significantly different between the two groups both at 30 and 60 min. Mannitol led to transient clinical improvement in five patients without significant reduction in HS or SSS-PMJ distance at 30 and 60 min.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeurologySame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207