MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524586782 · doi:10.26443/mjm.v7i2.397

The Vegetative State: A Review of Etiology and Prognostic Factors

2020· review· en· W2524586782 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rachel Davison

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtiologyMedicineConfusionIntensive care medicineCertaintyIncidence (geometry)Outcome (game theory)PediatricsInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the research investigating the vegetative state (VS) in terms of its aetiology and prognostic factors that may be indicative of the outcome for patients in the VS. The VS is a relatively rare syndrome that still causes confusion for treating clinicians. In short, the VS is a clinical condition of unawareness of self and environment but with retained wakefulness. Until relatively recently there were no universally accepted diagnostic criteria, which caused problems both in terms of diagnosing the patient and in determining the incidence of the VS. This paper examines the most relevant and up to date work in order to determine if there is a way of predicting whether the VS for any given patient will be persistent (i.e. recovery is still possible) or if it is permanent and further treatment is futile. Currently, the most accurately available method to predict the prognosis of a patient in the VS is through clinical assessment of the patient combined with knowledge of the aetiology and duration of the VS. More work is needed in order to allow for the prediction of the outcome of the VS with greater certainty.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207