MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093540210 · doi:10.1177/0883073810369380

The Apnea Test: Rationale, Confounders, and Criticism

2010· review· en· W2093540210 on OpenAlexaff
Ari R. Joffe, Natalie Anton, Jonathan P. Duff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreathingApneaConfoundingSleep apneaAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The apnea test is recommended for the diagnosis of brain death. There are several reasons this test should be reconsidered. Confounding factors for performing the test are vaguely and poorly specified. The following 2 confounders are usually present and not considered: potentially reversible high cervical spinal cord injury and central endocrine failure of adrenal and thyroid axes. There are case reports of breathing at a higher partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide threshold and cases of recovery of breathing after brain death is diagnosed. The test is dangerous for an injured brain in the setting of high intracranial pressure. It can convert viable penumbral brain tissue to irreversibly nonfunctioning tissue via a transient increase in intracranial pressure and no-reflow phenomena. Hyperoxia during the apnea test can further suppress the function of medullary respiratory rhythm centers. Finally, the philosophical rationale for the need to show lack of spontaneous breathing in brain death is lacking.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations49
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207