MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601361774 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v7n8p86

Guidelines for supporting a pregnant patient with brain death: A case discussion and literature review

2017· article· en· W2601361774 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa Rose Erlinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain functionMedicineScope (computer science)Coma (optics)Intensive care medicineHealth professionalsPrinciple of legalityPsychologyHealth carePsychiatryNeurosciencePolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain death implies irreversible cessation of the brainstem function. While it is generally considered unethical and futile to continue to support vital organs once a diagnosis of brain death has been made, patients who are both pregnant and brain dead complicate this issue because the appropriateness of continuing maternal somatic support to prolong gestation to delivery is still debated. This article will review the literature, and open up dialogue, about the need for guidelines and recommendations in anesthesia care, including the ethics, legality, and cost of supporting the mother’s life to save an unborn child, when somatically supporting pregnant patients who are brain dead, are in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), or are in a coma due to irreversible brain injury. Making a case for or against supporting such patients is outside the scope of this paper. This review finds that the need for guidelines to assist healthcare professionals in providing care to somatically supported mother is necessary.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207