A clinical prediction model for raised intracranial pressure in patients with traumatic brain injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intracranial hypertension is believed to contribute to secondary brain insult in traumatically brain injured patients. Currently, the diagnosis of intracranial hypertension requires intracranial monitoring or advanced imaging. Unfortunately, prehospital transport times can be prolonged, delaying time to the initial radiographic assessment. The aim of this study was to identify clinical variables associated with raised intracranial pressure (ICP) prior to the completion of neuroimaging. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of head injured patients over a 3-year period. Patients were labeled as having increased ICP if they had a single reading of ICP greater than 20 mm Hg within 1 hour of ICP monitor insertion or computed tomography findings suggestive of raised ICP. Patient and clinical characteristics were analyzed using stepwise multivariable logistic regression with ICP as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Of 701 head injured patients identified, 580 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 48.65 ± 21 years, 73.3% were male. The mean Injury Severity Score was 22.71 ± 12.38, and the mean Abbreviated Injury Scale for body region head was 3.34 ± 1.06. Overall mortality was 14.7%. Only 46 (7.9%) patients had an ICP monitor inserted; however, a total of 107 (18%) patients met the definition of raised ICP. The mortality rate for patients with raised ICP was 50.4%. Independent predictors of raised ICP were as follows: age, older than 55 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-3.76), pupillary fixation (OR, 5.76; 95% CI, 3.16-10.50), signs of significant head trauma (OR, 2.431; 95% CI, 1.39-4.26), and need for intubation (OR, 3.589; 95% CI, 2.10-6.14). CONCLUSION: This study identified four independent variables associated with raised ICP and incorporated these findings into a preliminary risk assessment scale that can be implemented at the bedside to identify patients at significant risk of raised ICP. Future work is needed to prospectively validate these findings prior to clinical implementation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, Epidemiological, level III.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".