MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129535740 · doi:10.4103/1817-1745.147572

Management of raised intracranial pressure in children with traumatic brain injury

2014· review· en· W2129535740 on OpenAlexaff
Hadi Mohseni-Bod, Vinay Kukreti, James M. Drake

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Neurosciences · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracranial pressureTraumatic brain injuryCerebral perfusion pressureNarrative reviewIntracranial pressure monitoringIntensive care medicineRaised intracranial pressureAnesthesiaCerebral blood flowPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is associated with worse outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The current guidelines and management strategies are aimed at maintaining adequate cerebral perfusion pressure and treating elevated ICP. Despite controversies, ICP monitoring is important particularly after severe TBI to guide treatment and in developed countries is accepted as a standard of care. We provide a narrative review of the recent evidence for the use of ICP monitoring and management of ICP in pediatric TBI.

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)0.001
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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations54
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric NeurosciencesSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207