MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2957853081 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029621

Development of a point of care system for automated coma prognosis: a prospective cohort study protocol

2019· article· en· W2957853081 on OpenAlexafffund
John F. Connolly, J.P. Reilly, Alison Fox‐Robichaud, Patrick Britz, Stefanie Blain‐Moraes, Ranil Sonnadara, Cindy Hamielec, Adianes Herrera-Díaz, Rober Boshra

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityBrain Canada FoundationVector InstituteHamilton Health SciencesMaRS
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHamilton Health SciencesCalifornia HIV/AIDS Research Program
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Coma (optics)Prospective cohort studyCohort studyPoint of careMedical emergencyCohortEpidemiologyEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineNursingAlternative medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Coma is a deep state of unconsciousness that can be caused by a variety of clinical conditions. Traditional tests for coma outcome prediction are based mainly on a set of clinical observations. Recently, certain event-related potentials (ERPs), which are transient electroencephalogram (EEG) responses to auditory, visual or tactile stimuli, have been introduced as useful predictors of a positive coma outcome (ie, emergence). However, such tests require the skills of clinical neurophysiologists, who are not commonly available in many clinical settings. Additionally, none of the current standard clinical approaches have sufficient predictive accuracies to provide definitive prognoses. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to develop improved machine learning procedures based on EEG/ERP for determining emergence from coma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data will be collected from 50 participants in coma. EEG/ERP data will be recorded for 24 consecutive hours at a maximum of five time points spanning 30 days from the date of recruitment to track participants' progression. The study employs paradigms designed to elicit brainstem potentials, middle-latency responses, N100, mismatch negativity, P300 and N400. In the case of patient emergence, data are recorded on that occasion to form an additional basis for comparison. A relevant data set will be developed from the testing of 20 healthy controls, each spanning a 15-hour recording period in order to formulate a baseline. Collected data will be used to develop an automated procedure for analysis and detection of various ERP components that are salient to prognosis. Salient features extracted from the ERP and resting-state EEG will be identified and combined to give an accurate indicator of prognosis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (project number 4840). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03826407.

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)0.019
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.373 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→