MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994972136 · doi:10.14740/jcs389

Comparison of 3% vs. 23.4% Hypertonic Saline in Traumatic Brain Injury

2019· article· en· W2994972136 on OpenAlex
David Traficante, Dina Galaktionova, Urielle Marseille, Steven Hochman, Jamshed Zuberi, Robert Madlinger

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Current Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlasgow Coma ScaleHypertonic salineTraumatic brain injuryHypernatremiaResuscitationIntensive care unitAnesthesiaIntracranial pressureInjury Severity ScoreRetrospective cohort studyBolus (digestion)Abbreviated Injury ScaleMedical recordSurgeryPoison controlEmergency medicineInternal medicineInjury preventionSodium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hypertonic saline (HTS) is an effective treatment for patients with increased intracranial pressure (ICP) secondary to traumatic brain injury (TBI). The ideal concentration for use in these patients is not well defined. The aim of our study was to compare Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and mortality of patients after administration of 3% vs. 23.4% HTS in the initial resuscitation. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) under the trauma service with a diagnosis of TBI who received HTS during initial resuscitation. Patient medical records were reviewed to collect data including in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, GCS at the time of admission and discharge, serum sodium and serum osmolality values at 24, 48 and 72 h after arrival, acute kidney injury and severe hypernatremia. Results: Patients >= 18 years of age admitted to trauma ICU with a diagnosis of TBI. Pregnant, incarcerated, or non-traumatic intracranial hemorrhage patients were excluded. Thirty-one patients were included in the study. The 3% arm included 21 patients, and 23.4% arm had 10 patients. All patients received 3% HTS continuous infusion following initial bolus. Median injury severity scores (ISS) were 22 vs. 25 in the 3% vs. 23.4% HTS groups, respectively (P = 0.37). There was no difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups (52.4% vs. 50.0%, P = 0.45). There was a significant improvement in GCS at discharge, 8.3% vs. 44.4% in 3% HTS vs. 23.4% HTS arms, respectively (P = 0.029). Patients reaching goal serum sodium and serum osmolality at 24 h was significantly higher in the 23.4% group (33.3% vs. 70.0%; P = 0.028 and 35.7% vs. 77.8%; P = 0.026, respectively). Significant increase in incidence of severe hypernatremia in the 23.4% arm was noted (0.0% vs. 40.0%, P = 0.009). Conclusion: This study demonstrates no significant difference in in-hospital mortality for patients who received 3% vs. 23.4% HTS. Significantly higher percentage of patients receiving 23.4% HTS reached goal serum sodium and osmolality levels at 24 h with a concomitant significantly increased rate of severe hypernatremia. J Curr Surg. 2019;9(4):39-44 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs389 Â

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.288 · 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