Critical thresholds for intracranial pressure vary over time in non-craniectomised traumatic brain injury patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP)- and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP)-guided therapy is central to neurocritical care for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. We sought to identify time-dependent critical thresholds for mortality and unfavourable outcome for ICP and CPP in non-craniectomised TBI patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 355 patients with moderate-to-severe TBI who received ICP monitoring and were managed without decompressive craniectomy in a tertiary hospital neurocritical care unit. Patients were grouped in 2 × 2 tables according to survival/death or favourable/unfavourable outcomes at 6 months and serial thresholds of mean ICP and CPP, using increments of 0.1 and 0.5 mmHg respectively. Sequential chi-square analysis was performed, and the thresholds yielding the highest chi-square test statistic were taken as having the best discriminative value for outcome. This process was repeated over monitoring periods of 1, 3, 5 and 7 days and for each day of recording to establish time-dependent thresholds. The same analysis was performed for age and sex subgroups. RESULTS: Global ICP thresholds were 21.3 and 20.5 mmHg for mortality and unfavourable outcome respectively (p < 0.001). After the first day of ICP monitoring, ICP thresholds fell to between 15 and 20 mmHg and remained significant (p < 0.05). Significant time-dependent CPP thresholds for mortality or unfavourable outcome were often not identified, and no identifiable trends were produced. CONCLUSION: Critical ICP thresholds in non-craniectomised TBI patients vary with time and fall below established ICP targets after the first day of monitoring.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".