MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130323362 · doi:10.1080/02699050010005931

The use of bupropion in the treatment of restlessness after a traumatic brain injury

2001· article· en· W2130323362 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyn J. Teng, Shree Bhalerao, Helen Morris, Theresa Foran, William Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBupropionTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyDopaminergicMedicinePsychiatryAnesthesiaDopamineNeuroscienceSmoking cessation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence of restlessness after a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is common. Severe restlessness can be a barrier in the multidisciplinary treatment of patients with TBI. The following case describes a patient with restlessness after a head-on motor vehicle accident. The patient was tachycardic, diaphoretic, demonstrating decerebrate posturing and a Rancho Los Amigos Stage II--III. Significant left lower leg restlessness was severe enough to cause bruising and ulceration. A multidisciplinary look was taken at the effects of using different neurotransmitter modulators in the treatment of restlessness after a TBI. Current biology treatment options include the use of medications that either modulate dopamine or noradrenaline alone. Bupropion effects both the dopaminergic and noradrenergic pathways. In the following case, the patient's restlessness was resistant to almost every medication employed. The only medication that proved to be effective in significantly reducing the patient's restlessness was bupropion. The evidence for the use of bupropion in the treatment of restlessness after a TBI has never been discussed previously, aside from anecdotal accounts. It is hoped that this case will prove insight into another treatment option for patients who have severe restlessness.

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)0.001
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 score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207