MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150695877 · doi:10.4103/1658-354x.114047

Early brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage: Where are we at present?

2013· article· en· W2150695877 on OpenAlexaff
Tumul Chowdhury, HariHara Dash, RonaldB Cappellani, Jayesh Daya

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Anaesthesia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubarachnoid hemorrhagePathophysiologyMechanism (biology)VasospasmBleedIschemiaIntensive care medicineIntracranial pressureTherapeutic modalitiesReview articleNeuroscienceAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current era has adopted many new innovations in nearly every aspect of management of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH); however, the neurological outcome has still not changed significantly. These major therapeutic advances mainly addressed the two most important sequels of the SAH-vasospasm and re-bleed. Thus, there is a possibility of some different pathophysiological mechanism that would be responsible for causing poor outcome in these patients. In this article, we have tried to compile the current role of this different yet potentially treatable pathophysiological mechanism in post-SAH patients. The main pathophysiological mechanism for the development of early brain injury (EBI) is the apoptotic pathways. The macro-mechanism includes increased intracranial pressure, disruption of the blood-brain barrier, and finally global ischemia. Most of the treatment strategies are still in the experimental phase. Although the role of EBI following SAH is now well established, the treatment modalities for human patients are yet to be testified.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.015
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Journal of AnaesthesiaSame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207