Pressure Autoregulation Measurement Techniques in Adult Traumatic Brain Injury, Part II: A Scoping Review of Continuous Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A scoping review of the literature was performed systematically on commonly described continuous autoregulation measurement techniques in adult traumatic brain injury (TBI) to provide an overview of methodology and comprehensive reference library of the available literature for each technique. Five separate small systematic reviews were conducted for each of the continuous techniques: pressure reactivity index (PRx), laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF), near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) techniques, brain tissue oxygen tension (PbtO2), and thermal diffusion (TD) techniques. Articles from MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, Scopus, Cochrane Library (inception to December 2016), and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. A two-tier filter of references was conducted. The literature base identified from the individual searches was limited, except for PRx. The total number of articles using each of the five searched techniques for continuous autoregulation in adult TBI were: PRx (28), LDF (4), NIRS (9), PbtO2 (10), and TD (8). All continuous techniques described in adult TBI are based on moving correlation coefficients. The premise behind the calculation of these moving correlation coefficients focuses on the impact of slow fluctuations in either mean arterial pressure (MAP) or cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) on some indirect measure of cerebral blood flow (CBF), such as: intracranial pressure (ICP), LDF, NIRS signals, PbtO2, or TD CBF. The thought is the correlation between a hemodynamic driving factor, such as MAP or CPP, and a surrogate for CBF or cerebral perfusion sheds insight on the state of cerebral autoregulation. Both PRx and NIRS indices were validated experimentally against the “gold standard” static autoregulatory curve (Lassen curve) at least around the lower threshold of autoregulation. The PRx has the largest literature base supporting the association with patient outcome. Various methods of continuous autoregulation assessment are described within the adult TBI literature. Many studies exist on these various indices, suggesting an association between their values and patient morbidity/death.
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 | 0.027 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".