MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2780695428

Effects of Decompressive Craniectomy on Functional Outcomes and Mortality in Poor-Grade Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

2017· dissertation· en· W2780695428 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Naif M. Alotaibi

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDecompressive craniectomySubarachnoid hemorrhageMedicineSurgeryAnesthesiaTraumatic brain injuryPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is often considered as a life-saving measure for trauma and ischemic stroke. Selected patients with poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) have been subjected to DC, but its benefits remain unknown. The aim of this meta-analytic review is to surmise the overall effects of DC on poor-grade aSAH outcomes. Methods: Data were acquired from previous publications on DC and the Subarachnoid Hemorrhage International Trialists (SAHIT) Repository. We performed both study-level and individual participant analysis. Results: Fifteen published studies and one dataset from SAHIT met our inclusion criteria. DC was associated with high event rate of unfavorable outcomes and mortality, however, the overall quality of evidence was poor due to high risks of bias and significant heterogeneity in most outcome measures. Conclusion: The currently available evidence suggests that the impact of DC on poor-grade aSAH outcomes is trending toward a harmful effect. High-quality prospective studies are urgently needed.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.011
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→