Delirium and agitation in traumatic brain injury patients: an update on pathological hypotheses and treatment options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global public health epidemic. It represents the principal cause of death and disability in individuals aged under 35 in the USA. In the subacute phase, severe TBI patients who recover consciousness go through a state of agitation and delirium. However, there is only limited research exploring the characteristics of post-traumatic delirium (PTD) although it is likely to be more frequent than in general Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Evidence suggest the incidence of delirium in non-TBI ICU patients is up to 86%. The exact pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development and progression of delirium in critically ill patients is still unclear. Many hypotheses have been proposed to play a role: neuroinflammation, neurotransmitter imbalance, structural and functional brain damage. TBI patients are at high risk of post-traumatic cognitive impairment, and up to two thirds of patients who survive TBI develop agitation and delirium which is associated with increased disability and long term cognitive impairment. Recommendation for the treatment of PTD in patients admitted to ICU are not clearly identified. Despite the high prevalence of PTD, the condition often goes misrecognized and attributed primarily to the injury itself. There is increasing evidence that certain drugs such as antipsychotics can reduce the incidence and severity of delirium, whereas other drugs such as dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are associated with decreased risk of developing delirium in general ICU patients. However, there is a lack of high quality studies exploring treatment strategies for PTD in the acute setting.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".