Cerebrospinal Fluid and Microdialysis Cytokines in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform two scoping systematic reviews of the literature on cytokine measurement in: 1. cerebral microdialysis (CMD) and 2. cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. METHODS: Two separate systematic reviews were conducted: one for CMD cytokines and the second for CSF cytokines. Both were conducted in severe TBI (sTBI) patients only. DATA SOURCES: Articles from MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, Scopus, Cochrane Library (inception to October 2016), reference lists of relevant articles, and gray literature were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently identified all manuscripts utilizing predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. A two-tier filter of references was conducted. DATA EXTRACTION: Patient demographic and study data were extracted to tables. RESULTS: CMD in 267 sTBI patients. Similarly, there were 32 studies identified describing the analysis of CSF cytokines in 1,363 sTBI patients. The two systematic reviews demonstrated: 1. limited literature available on CMD cytokine measurement in sTBI, with some preliminary data supporting feasibility of measurement and associations between cytokines and patient outcome. 2. Various CSF measured cytokines may be associated with patient outcome at 6-12 months, including interleukin (IL)-1b, IL-1ra, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor 3. There is little to no literature in support of an association between CSF cytokines and neurophysiologic or tissue outcomes. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of CMD and CSF cytokines is an emerging area of the literature in sTBI. Further, large prospective multicenter studies on cytokines in CMD and CSF need to be conducted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".