MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002232662 · doi:10.1007/s00134-019-05900-x

A management algorithm for adult patients with both brain oxygen and intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC)

2020· article· en· W3002232662 on OpenAlexaff
Randall M. Chesnut, Sergio Aguilera, András Büki, Eileen M. Bulger, Giuseppe Citerio, D. James Cooper, Ramon Diaz Arrastia, Michael N. Diringer, Anthony Figaji, Guoyi Gao, Romer Geocadin, Jamshid Ghajar, Odette A. Harris, Alan Hoffer, Peter J. Hutchinson, Mathew Joseph, Ryan S. Kitagawa, Geoffrey T. Manley, Stephan A. Mayer, David K. Menon, Geert Meyfroidt, Daniel B. Michael, Mauro Oddo, David O. Okonkwo, Mayur B. Patel, Claudia S. Robertson, Jeffrey V. Rosenfeld, Andrés M. Rubiano, Juan Sahuquillo, Franco Servadei, Lori Shutter, Deborah M. Stein, Nino Stocchetti, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Shelly D. Timmons, Eve C. Tsai, Jamie S. Ullman, Paul Vespa, Walter Videtta, David W. Wright, Christopher Zammit, Gregory W. J. Hawryluk

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEuropean Society of Intensive Care MedicineNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchStrykerCongress of Neurological Surgeons
KeywordsMedicineTraumatic brain injuryIntracranial pressureProtocol (science)Intensive care medicineDelphi methodGuidelineMedical emergencyAnesthesiaPsychiatryPathologyComputer scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the treatment of adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) consist of high-quality evidence reports, but they are no longer accompanied by management protocols, as these require expert opinion to bridge the gap between published evidence and patient care. We aimed to establish a modern sTBI protocol for adult patients with both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain oxygen monitors in place. METHODS: Our consensus working group consisted of 42 experienced and actively practicing sTBI opinion leaders from six continents. Having previously established a protocol for the treatment of patients with ICP monitoring alone, we addressed patients who have a brain oxygen monitor in addition to an ICP monitor. The management protocols were developed through a Delphi-method-based consensus approach and were finalized at an in-person meeting. RESULTS: We established three distinct treatment protocols, each with three tiers whereby higher tiers involve therapies with higher risk. One protocol addresses the management of ICP elevation when brain oxygenation is normal. A second addresses management of brain hypoxia with normal ICP. The third protocol addresses the situation when both intracranial hypertension and brain hypoxia are present. The panel considered issues pertaining to blood transfusion and ventilator management when designing the different algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: These protocols are intended to assist clinicians in the management of patients with both ICP and brain oxygen monitors but they do not reflect either a standard-of-care or a substitute for thoughtful individualized management. These protocols should be used in conjunction with recommendations for basic care, management of critical neuroworsening and weaning treatment recently published in conjunction with the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations416
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207