P.071 Eeg activity during withdrawal of life sustaining therapies in the ICU: a substudy of the death prediction and physiology after removal of therapy study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is a recently accepted source for solid organ donation in Canada. Standards for circulatory death vary within and between countries and little is known about neurologic function at the time of circulatory death. This pilot study will explore the electrical physiology of the brain during the dying process following withdrawal of life support and at the time of declaration of circulatory death. Methods: This single-centre pilot study will build on preliminary data from the DDePICt (Death Determination Practices in Intensive Care) research program. With institutional approval and signed consent from the substitute decision maker, participants will undergo continuous 10-20 EEG (cEEG) monitoring in addition to monitoring vital signs during the dying process and for 30 minutes after the declaration of death. Results: Preliminary results including cEEG, blood pressure with arterial wave forms, EKG activity and oxygen saturations are currently under analysis and will be presented. Conclusions: It is feasible to study neurologic function during withdrawal of life support and these results will allow us to further understand the electrical activity of the brain during the dying process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".