MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333494667 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100003619

Prognostic Value of Evoked Responses and Event-Related Brain Potentials in

2004· review· en· W2333494667 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jing Tian Wang, G. Bryan Young, John F. Connolly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam Trusts
KeywordsSomatosensory evoked potentialMismatch negativityEvent-related potentialComa (optics)CognitionElectrophysiologyBrainstemPsychologyElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceEvoked potentialNegativity effectMedicineAudiologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The behaviourally unresponsive patient, unable to exhibit the presence of cognition, constitutes a conundrum for health care specialists. Prognostic uncertainty impedes accurate management decisions and the application of ethical principles. An early, reliable prognosis is highly desirable. In this review investigations studying comatose patients with coma of different etiologies were selected. It is concluded that objective prognostication is enhanced by the use of electrophysiological tests. Persistent abnormalities of brainstem auditory evoked potentials and short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials reliably indicate the likelihood of irreversible neurological deficit or death. Meanwhile, the presence of "cognitive" event-related brain potentials (e.g., P300 and mismatch negativity) reflects the functional integrity of higher level information processing and, therefore, the likelihood of capacity for cognition. An approach that combines clinical and electrophysiological values provides optimal prediction of outcome and level of disability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations44
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207