MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804871244 · doi:10.2741/s520

Using neuroimaging to uncover awareness in brain-injured and anesthetized patients

2018· article· en· W2804871244 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lorina Naçi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Bioscience-Scholar · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCovertNeuroimagingConsciousnessMedicineContext (archaeology)Minimally conscious statePerspective (graphical)AccidentalIntraoperative AwarenessLevel of consciousnessIntensive care medicinePersistent vegetative stateAnesthesiaPsychologyNeuroscienceMedical emergencyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We cast a novel perspective on two distinct populations: patients who become accidentally intraoperatively aware after receiving general anesthesia and severely brain-injured patients who are diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. In both cases, patients are behaviorally non-responsive -and on this basis presumed to lack consciousness- yet, retain covert awareness. In both contexts, detecting consciousness is highly challenging, yet highly important for ensuring adequate patient care. Although great strides have been made in the development of depth-of-anesthesia monitors, these monitors have significant limitations. On the other hand, recent neuroimaging studies on severely brain-injured patients have developed neurobiologically-informed markers of conscious awareness that hold potential for improving monitoring of covert awareness during general anesthesia. Further research is required to determine the implementation of these assessments in the surgical context, and this approach provides promising avenues for improved detection of intraoperative awareness and prevention of accidental awareness under general anesthesia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Bioscience-ScholarSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207