MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014356537 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-322645

EEG to detect early recovery of consciousness in amantadine-treated acute brain injury patients

2020· letter· en· W3014356537 on OpenAlexaff
Ayham Alkhachroum, Andrey Eliseyev, Caroline Der‐Nigoghossian, Clio Rubiños, Julie Kromm, Elizabeth Mathews, Andrew Bauerschmidt, Kevin Doyle, Angela Velasquez, Jennifer Egbebike, Anna Calderon, David Roh, Soojin Park, Sachin Agarwal, E. Sander Connolly, Jan Claassen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsPersistent vegetative stateMinimally conscious stateAmantadineAcquired brain injuryElectroencephalographyLevel of consciousnessConsciousness DisordersComa (optics)ConsciousnessCohortGlasgow Coma ScalePsychologyMedicineTraumatic brain injuryAnesthesiaDeliriumNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychiatryRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disorder of consciousness (DOC) is common in patients with acute brain injury (ABI) and it weighs heavily in goals of care discussion.1 Dopaminergic agents to support recovery have shown encouraging results in chronic DOC following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and are currently the most promising candidates to also support recovery during the acute post injury phase.2 Amantadine is a neurohormonal modulator that increases the concentration of dopamine at the synaptic cleft. Behavioural assessments of consciousness alone are often operator dependent, time consuming to obtain and may miss patients with covert consciousness.3 Our hypothesis is that resting Electroencephalogram (EEG) features follow a predictable course preceding behavioural recovery in patients with acute non-hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury receiving amantadine and may serve as biomarkers for recovery of consciousness. We studied 44 patients with ABI that were not following commands and were on EEG monitoring before and after the start of amantadine. A full description of the methods is available in the online supplementary file. ### Supplementary data [jnnp-2019-322645supp001.pdf] ### Study cohort From a cohort of 44 patients, 30 (68%) recovered consciousness prior to hospital discharge (online supplementary tables S1, S2). ### Baseline predictors of recovery Age, focal versus diffuse brain injury and admission Glasgow Coma Score were not associated with recovery of command following. Presence of sleep structures in the EEG (spindles and K-complexes) prior to starting amantadine was independently associated with recovery of command following (online supplementary table S3). Average spectrogram plots for each EEG recording classified according to the ‘ABCD’ model representing thalamocortical integrity were generated (figure 1A, online supplementary figure).4 The percent of patients that recovered command following did not increase hierarchically with higher ‘ABCD’ levels (figure 1B). Power spectral density analysis …

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
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

Citations35
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207