Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury – Results of a Canadian Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to obtain information from Canadian neurosurgeons regarding their opinions on, and utilization of, intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring for severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: A brief survey was sent to practicing Canadian neurosurgeons questioning them about their utilization of, and confidence in, intracranial pressure monitoring in the management of patients with severe TBI. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-six surveys were mailed. There were 103 responses for a response rate of 52.6%. The vast majority of responding neurosurgeons (98.1%) utilized ICP monitoring in the management of patients with severe TBI, with most (63.4%) using it in more than 75% of their patients, 14.9% using it in 50-75% of patients, 14.9% in 25-50% of patients, and 6.9% using it in less than 25% of patients. The level of confidence that routine monitoring improves outcome from severe TBI ranged from 23.3% having a low level of confidence, 56.3% having an intermediate level of confidence, to 20.4% having a high level of confidence. Most respondents (78.6%) felt that some form of prospective trial evaluating the role of ICP monitoring in improving outcome from severe TBI was warranted; 17.4% felt such a trial was not warranted and 3.9% were uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: While ICP monitoring has gained almost universal acceptance among responding Canadian neurosurgeons, their level of confidence that routine monitoring improves outcome from severe TBI was quite variable, with only 20.4% of respondents having a high level of confidence. Over 75% of respondents felt that some form of prospective trial evaluating the utility of ICP monitoring is warranted. This information is being used in consideration of a prospective trial addressing this issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".