MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950239115 · doi:10.1097/ana.0000000000000616

Patient-specific ICP Epidemiologic Thresholds in Adult Traumatic Brain Injury: A CENTER-TBI Validation Study

2019· article· en· W2950239115 on OpenAlexaff
Frederick A. Zeiler, Ari Ercole, Manuel Cabeleira, Erta Beqiri, Tommaso Zoerle, Marco Carbonara, Nino Stocchetti, David K. Menon, Christos Lazaridis, Peter Smielewski, Marek Czosnyka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreZNS - Hannelore Kohl StiftungCambridge University HospitalsEuropean CommissionUniversity of CambridgeDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchIntegra LifeSciences
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeTraumatic brain injuryTrauma centerIntracranial pressureReceiver operating characteristicCohortLogistic regressionUnivariate analysisInternal medicineGlasgow Outcome ScaleArea under the curveConfoundingUnivariateCohort studyAnesthesiaNuclear medicineMultivariate analysisRetrospective cohort studyMultivariate statisticsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient-specific epidemiologic intracranial pressure (ICP) thresholds in adult traumatic brain injury (TBI) have emerged, using the relationship between pressure reactivity index (PRx) and ICP, displaying stronger association with outcome over existing guideline thresholds. The goal of this study was to explore this relationship in a multi-center cohort in order to confirm the previous finding. METHODS: Using the Collaborative European Neuro Trauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) high-resolution intensive care unit cohort, we derived individualized epidemiologic ICP thresholds for each patient using the relationship between PRx and ICP. Mean hourly dose of ICP was calculated for every patient for the following thresholds: 20, 22 mm Hg and the patient's individual ICP threshold. Univariate logistic regression models were created comparing mean hourly dose of ICP above thresholds to dichotomized outcome at 6 to 12 months, based on Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended (GOSE) (alive/dead-GOSE≥2/GOSE=1; favorable/unfavorable-GOSE 5 to 8/GOSE 1 to 4, respectively). RESULTS: Individual thresholds were identified in 65.3% of patients (n=128), in keeping with previous results (23.0±11.8 mm Hg [interquartile range: 14.9 to 29.8 mm Hg]). Mean hourly dose of ICP above individual threshold provides superior discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC]=0.678, P=0.029) over mean hourly dose above 20 mm Hg (AUC=0.509, P=0.03) or above 22 mm Hg (AUC=0.492, P=0.035) on univariate analysis for alive/dead outcome at 6 to 12 months. The AUC for mean hourly dose above individual threshold trends to higher values for favorable/unfavorable outcome, but fails to reach statistical significance (AUC=0.610, P=0.060). This was maintained when controlling for baseline admission characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Mean hourly dose of ICP above individual epidemiologic ICP threshold has stronger associations with mortality compared with the dose above Brain Trauma Foundation defined thresholds of 20 or 22 mm Hg, confirming prior findings. Further studies on patient-specific epidemiologic ICP thresholds are required.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations68
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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