MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025917393 · doi:10.1007/s10877-020-00527-6

Evaluation of the relationship between slow-waves of intracranial pressure, mean arterial pressure and brain tissue oxygen in TBI: a CENTER-TBI exploratory analysis

2020· article· en· W3025917393 on OpenAlexaff
Frederick A. Zeiler, Manuel Cabeleira, Peter J. Hutchinson, Nino Stocchetti, Marek Czosnyka, Peter Smielewski, Ari Ercole, Audny Anke, Ronny Beer, Bo‐Michael Bellander, Erta Beqiri, András Büki, Marco Carbonara, Arturo Chieregato, Giuseppe Citerio, Hans Clusmann, Endre Czeiter, Bart Depreitere, Shirin Frisvold, Raimund Helbok, Stefan Jankowski, Lars‐Owe Koskinen, Ana Kowark, David K. Menon, 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, Nina Sundström, Riikka Takala, Tomas Tamošuitis, Olli Tenovuo, Peter Vajkoczy, Alessia Vargiolu, Rimantas Vilcinis, Stefan Wolf, Alexander Younsi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersEuropean CommissionZNS - Hannelore Kohl StiftungIntegra LifeSciences
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryIntracranial pressureCerebral autoregulationMean arterial pressureMedicineCerebral perfusion pressureAutoregressive integrated moving averageAnesthesiaCardiologyCerebral blood flowInternal medicineBlood pressureStatisticsMathematicsAutoregulationHeart rateTime series

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Brain tissue oxygen (PbtO2) monitoring in traumatic brain injury (TBI) has demonstrated strong associations with global outcome. Additionally, PbtO2 signals have been used to derive indices thought to be associated with cerebrovascular reactivity in TBI. However, their true relationship to slow-wave vasogenic fluctuations associated with cerebral autoregulation remains unclear. The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between slow-wave fluctuations of intracranial pressure (ICP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and PbtO2 over time. Using the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) high resolution ICU sub-study cohort, we evaluated those patients with recorded high-frequency digital intra-parenchymal ICP and PbtO2 monitoring data of a minimum of 6 h in duration. Digital physiologic signals were processed for ICP, MAP, and PbtO2 slow-waves using a moving average filter to decimate the high-frequency signal. The first 5 days of recording were analyzed. The relationship between ICP, MAP and PbtO2 slow-waves over time were assessed using autoregressive integrative moving average (ARIMA) and vector autoregressive integrative moving average (VARIMA) modelling, as well as Granger causality testing. A total of 47 patients were included. The ARIMA structure of ICP and MAP were similar in time, where PbtO2 displayed different optimal structure. VARIMA modelling and IRF plots confirmed the strong directional relationship between MAP and ICP, demonstrating an ICP response to MAP impulse. PbtO2 slow-waves, however, failed to demonstrate a definite response to ICP and MAP slow-wave impulses. These results raise questions as to the utility of PbtO2 in the derivation of cerebrovascular reactivity measures in TBI. There is a reproducible relationship between slow-wave fluctuations of ICP and MAP, as demonstrated across various time-series analytic techniques. PbtO2 does not appear to reliably respond in time to slow-wave fluctuations in MAP, as demonstrated on various VARIMA models across all patients. These findings suggest that PbtO2 should not be utilized in the derivation of cerebrovascular reactivity metrics in TBI, as it does not appear to be responsive to changes in MAP in the slow-waves. These findings corroborate previous results regarding PbtO2 based cerebrovascular reactivity indices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Monitoring and ComputingSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207