MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751809382 · doi:10.1002/jnr.24148

Transcranial Doppler: a stethoscope for the brain‐neurocritical care use

2017· review· en· W2751809382 on OpenAlexaff
Chiara Robba, Danilo Cardim, Mypinder S. Sekhon, Karol P. Budohoski, Marek Czosnyka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurointensive careTranscranial DopplerCerebral autoregulationMedicineIntracranial pressureCerebral blood flowHemodynamicsMiddle cerebral arteryBlood flowIntensive careCardiologyBlood pressureIntensive care medicineAutoregulationAnesthesiaInternal medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasonography is a noninvasive bedside monitoring technique that can evaluate cerebral blood flow hemodynamics in the intracranial arterial vasculature. TCD allows assessment of linear cerebral blood flow velocity, with a high temporal resolution and is inexpensive, reproducible, and portable. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the most commonly used TCD derived signals and measurements used commonly in neurocritical care. We describe both basic (flow velocity, pulsatility index) and advanced concepts, including critical closing pressure, wall tension, autoregulation, noninvasive intracranial pressure, brain compliance, and cerebrovascular time constant; we also describe the clinical applications of TCD to highlight their utility in the diagnosis and monitoring of cerebrovascular diseases as the "stethoscope for the brain."

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.622
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.046 · 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

Citations131
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207