Lack of Effect of Induction of Hypothermia after Acute Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Induction of hypothermia in patients with brain injury was shown to improve outcomes in small clinical studies, but the results were not definitive. To study this issue, we conducted a multicenter trial comparing the effects of hypothermia with those of normothermia in patients with acute brain injury. METHODS: The study subjects were 392 patients 16 to 65 years of age with coma after sustaining closed head injuries who were randomly assigned to be treated with hypothermia (body temperature, 33 degrees C), which was initiated within 6 hours after injury and maintained for 48 hours by means of surface cooling, or normothermia. All patients otherwise received standard treatment. The primary outcome measure was functional status six months after the injury. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients and the type and severity of injury in the two treatment groups were similar. The mean (+/-SD) time from injury to randomization was 4.3+/-1.1 hours in the hypothermia group and 4.1+/-1.2 hours in the normothermia group, and the mean time from injury to the achievement of the target temperature of 33 degrees C in the hypothermia group was 8.4+/-3.0 hours. The outcome was poor (defined as severe disability, a vegetative state, or death) in 57 percent of the patients in both groups. Mortality was 28 percent in the hypothermia group and 27 percent in the normothermia group (P=0.79). The patients in the hypothermia group had more hospital days with complications than the patients in the normothermia group. Fewer patients in the hypothermia group had high intracranial pressure than in the normothermia group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with hypothermia, with the body temperature reaching 33 degrees C within eight hours after injury, is not effective in improving outcomes in patients with severe brain injury.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".