MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785526214 · doi:10.1089/neu.2017.5596

Estimating Pressure Reactivity Using Noninvasive Doppler-Based Systolic Flow Index

2018· article· en· W2785526214 on OpenAlexaff
Frederick A. Zeiler, Peter Smielewski, Joseph E. Donnelly, Marek Czosnyka, David K. Menon, Ari Ercole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCambridge Commonwealth TrustEuropean CommissionKorea Health Industry Development InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsAkaike information criterionBayesian information criterionAutoregressive integrated moving averageStatisticsPopulationMathematicsConfidence intervalTranscranial DopplerRandom effects modelInternal medicineMedicineCardiologyTime seriesMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study objective was to derive models that estimate the pressure reactivity index (PRx) using the noninvasive transcranial Doppler (TCD) based systolic flow index (Sx_a) and mean flow index (Mx_a), both based on mean arterial pressure, in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Using a retrospective database of 347 patients with TBI with intracranial pressure and TCD time series recordings, we derived PRx, Sx_a, and Mx_a. We first derived the autocorrelative structure of PRx based on: (A) autoregressive integrative moving average (ARIMA) modeling in representative patients, and (B) within sequential linear mixed effects (LME) models with various embedded ARIMA error structures for PRx for the entire population. Finally, we performed sequential LME models with embedded PRx ARIMA modeling to find the best model for estimating PRx using Sx_a and Mx_a. Model adequacy was assessed via normally distributed residual density. Model superiority was assessed via Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), log likelihood (LL), and analysis of variance testing between models. The most appropriate ARIMA structure for PRx in this population was (2,0,2). This was applied in sequential LME modeling. Two models were superior (employing random effects in the independent variables and intercept): (A) PRx ∼ Sx_a, and (B) PRx ∼ Sx_a + Mx_a. Correlation between observed and estimated PRx with these two models was: (A) 0.794 (p < 0.0001, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.788-0.799), and (B) 0.814 (p < 0.0001, 95% CI = 0.809-0.819), with acceptable agreement on Bland-Altman analysis. Through using linear mixed effects modeling and accounting for the ARIMA structure of PRx, one can estimate PRx using noninvasive TCD-based indices. We have described our first attempts at such modeling and PRx estimation, establishing the strong link between two aspects of cerebral autoregulation: measures of cerebral blood flow and those of pulsatile cerebral blood volume. Further work is required to validate.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations42
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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