Modelling intracranial pressure with noninvasive physiological measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients who suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) require special care, and physicians often monitor intercranial pressure (ICP) as it can greatly aid in management. Although monitoring ICP can be critical, it requires neurosurgery, which presents additional significant risk. Monitoring ICP also aids in clinical situations beyond TBI, however the risk of neurosurgery can prevent physicians from gathering the data. The need for surgery may be eliminated if ICP could be accurately inferred using noninvasive physiological measures. Genetic programming (GP) and linear regression were used to develop nonlinear and linear mathematical models describing the relationships between intercranial pressure and a collection of physiological measurements from noninvasive instruments. Nonlinear models of ICP were generated that not only fit the subjects they were trained on, but generalized well across other subjects. The nonlinear models were analysed and provided insight into the studied underlying system which led to the creation of additional models. The new models were developed with a refined search, and were more accurate and general. It was also found that the relations between the features could be explained effectively with a simple linear model after GP refined the search.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".