MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995054429 · doi:10.1089/neu.2019.6726

Statistical Cerebrovascular Reactivity Signal Properties after Secondary Decompressive Craniectomy in Traumatic Brain Injury: A CENTER-TBI Pilot Analysis

2020· article· en· W2995054429 on OpenAlexafffund
Frederick A. Zeiler, Marcel Aries, Manuel Cabeleira, Thomas A. van Essen, Nino Stocchetti, David K. Menon, Ivan Timofeev, Marek Czosnyka, Peter Smielewski, Peter J. Hutchinson, Ari Ercole, Audny Anke, Ronny Beer, Bo‐Michael Bellander, Erta Biqiri, András Büki, Marco Carbonara, Arturo Chieregato, Giuseppe Citerio, Endre Czeiter, Bart Depreitere, Shirin Frisvold, Raimund Helbok, Stefan Jankowski, Lars‐Owe Koskinen, Geert Meyfroidt, Kirsten Moeller, David Nelson, Anna Piippo-Karjalainen, Andreea Rădoi, Arminas Ragauskas, Rahul Raj, Jonathan R. Rhodes, Saulius Ročka, Rolf Rossaint, Juan Sahuquillo, Oliver Sakowitz, Ana Stevanovic, Nina Sundström, Riikka Takala, Tomas Tamošuitis, Olli Tenovuo, Peter Vajkoczy, Alessia Vargiolu, Rimantas Vilcinis, Stefan Wolf, Alexander Younsi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreZNS - Hannelore Kohl StiftungCambridge University HospitalsEuropean CommissionUniversity of CambridgeDepartment of Health and Social CareCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHersenstichtingNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchIntegra LifeSciences
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryDecompressive craniectomyMedicineIntracranial pressureTrauma centerCerebral perfusion pressureAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicineCerebral blood flowRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) in traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been suggested to influence cerebrovascular reactivity. We aimed to determine if the statistical properties of vascular reactivity metrics and slow-wave relationships were impacted after DC, as such information would allow us to comment on whether vascular reactivity monitoring remains reliable after craniectomy. Using the CENTER-TBI High Resolution Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Sub-Study cohort, we selected those secondary DC patients with high-frequency physiological data for both at least 24 h pre-DC, and more than 48 h post-DC. Data for all physiology measures were separated into the 24 h pre-DC, the first 48 h post-DC, and beyond 48 h post-DC. We produced slow-wave data sheets for intracranial pressure (ICP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) per patient. We also derived a Pressure Reactivity Index (PRx) as a continuous cerebrovascular reactivity metric updated every minute. The time-series behavior of the PRx was modeled for each time period per patient. Finally, the relationship between ICP and MAP during these three time periods was assessed using time-series vector autoregressive integrative moving average (VARIMA) models, impulse response function (IRF) plots, and Granger causality testing. Ten patients were included in this study. Mean PRx and proportion of time above PRx thresholds were not affected by craniectomy. Similarly, PRx time-series structure was not affected by DC, when assessed in each individual patient. This was confirmed with Granger causality testing, and VARIMA IRF plotting for the MAP/ICP slow-wave relationship. PRx metrics and statistical time-series behavior appear not to be substantially influenced by DC. Similarly, there is little change in the relationship between slow waves of ICP and MAP before and after DC. This may suggest that cerebrovascular reactivity monitoring in the setting of DC may still provide valuable information regarding autoregulation.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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