MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403511889

Prognostic determination in anoxic-ischemic and traumatic encephalopathies.

2005· article· en· W2403511889 on OpenAlexaff
Young Gb, John F. Connolly

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrainstemSomatosensory evoked potentialNeurochemicalMismatch negativityMedicineNeuroscienceElectroencephalographyEvent-related potentialCognitionEvoked potentialAudiologyPsychologyAnesthesia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical assessment of the unresponsive patient is limited to examination of brainstem reflexes and simple motor responses to stimulation. It is thus difficult, especially if brainstem functions are intact, to give early, accurate prognostic information on comatose patients. Neurochemical tests and imaging have not been validated and have significant limitations. Electrophysiologic investigations provide a window into cerebral function and are tested, clinically useful, safe, available, and inexpensive. Persistent abnormalities of brainstem auditory evoked potentials and short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials reliably indicate the likelihood permanent vegetative state or death. Conversely, 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. A combined clinical and electrophysiologic approach 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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207