MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimation of pulsatile cerebral arterial blood volume based on transcranial doppler signals

2019· article· en· W2981770098 on OpenAlex
Leanne Calviello, Frederick A. Zeiler, Joseph E. Donnelly, Agnieszka Uryga, Nicolás de Riva, Peter Smielewski, Marek Czosnyka

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsatile flowTranscranial DopplerDoppler effectCardiologyMedicineCerebral blood volumeBiomedical engineeringCerebral blood flowInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Mathematical modeling of cerebral hemodynamics by descriptive equations can estimate the underlying pulsatile component of cerebral arterial blood volume (CaBV). This way, clinical monitoring of changes in cerebral compartmental compliances becomes possible. Our aim is to validate the most adequate method of CaBV estimation in neurocritical care. APPROACH: We retrospectively reviewed patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) [admitted from 1992-2012] and continuous transcranial Doppler (TCD) monitoring of cerebral blood flow velocity (FV) displaying either plateau waves of intracranial pressure (ICP), episodes of controlled, mild hypocapnia, or vasopressor-induced increases in arterial blood pressure (ABP). Each cohort was analyzed with continuous flow forward (CFF, pulsatile blood inflow and steady blood outflow) or pulsatile flow forward (PFF, both blood inflow and outflow are pulsatile) modeling approaches for estimating the pulse component of CaBV. Spectral pulsatility index (sPI, the first harmonic of the FV pulse/mean FV) can be estimated using the compliance of the vascular bed (Ca) and the cerebrovascular resistance (CVR - here, Ra). We compared three possible methods of assessing Ca (C1: the CFF model, C2 and C3: the PFF models based on ABP or cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) pulsations, respectively) and combined them with three possible methods of assessing Ra (Ra1= ABP/FV, Ra2= the resistance area product, and Ra3= CPP/FV). Linear regression techniques were applied to describe the strength of each CaBV estimator (a combination of Ca and Ra) against sPI. MAIN RESULTS: The combination of C1 and Ra3 (PI_C1Ra3) was the superior descriptor of CaBV as approximated by sPI for both the plateau waves and the hypocapnia cohorts (r = 0.915 and r = 0.955, respectively). The combination of C1 and Ra1 (PI_C1Ra1) was nearly as robust in the vasopressors cohort (r = 0.938 and r = 0.931, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE: TCD-based estimation of CaBV pulsations seems to be feasible when employing the CFF modeling approach.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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