Recording, analysis, and interpretation of spreading depolarizations in neurointensive care: Review and recommendations of the COSBID research group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spreading depolarizations (SD) are waves of abrupt, near-complete breakdown of neuronal transmembrane ion gradients, are the largest possible pathophysiologic disruption of viable cerebral gray matter, and are a crucial mechanism of lesion development. Spreading depolarizations are increasingly recorded during multimodal neuromonitoring in neurocritical care as a causal biomarker providing a diagnostic summary measure of metabolic failure and excitotoxic injury. Focal ischemia causes spreading depolarization within minutes. Further spreading depolarizations arise for hours to days due to energy supply-demand mismatch in viable tissue. Spreading depolarizations exacerbate neuronal injury through prolonged ionic breakdown and spreading depolarization-related hypoperfusion (spreading ischemia). Local duration of the depolarization indicates local tissue energy status and risk of injury. Regional electrocorticographic monitoring affords even remote detection of injury because spreading depolarizations propagate widely from ischemic or metabolically stressed zones; characteristic patterns, including temporal clusters of spreading depolarizations and persistent depression of spontaneous cortical activity, can be recognized and quantified. Here, we describe the experimental basis for interpreting these patterns and illustrate their translation to human disease. We further provide consensus recommendations for electrocorticographic methods to record, classify, and score spreading depolarizations and associated spreading depressions. These methods offer distinct advantages over other neuromonitoring modalities and allow for future refinement through less invasive and more automated approaches.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".