Adherence to brain trauma foundation guidelines for intracranial pressure monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury and the effect on outcome: A population-based study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant cause of death and disability. The objective of this study was to provide an overview of whether adherence to brain trauma foundation (BTF) guidelines improved outcomes following TBI utilizing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Methods: This cohort study between 2000 and 2013 involved 1848 patients who sustained severe blunt TBI. Outcomes were correlated with whether or not ICP monitoring was utilized based on BTF guidelines. Results: The BTF guideline adherence rate for utilizing ICP monitoring in patients with TBI was 30% in 1848 patients. Adherence rates positively correlated with younger age, high injury severity scores, lower Glasgow Coma Scores, abnormal computed tomography scans of the head, performance of a craniotomy, neurocritical care unit admission, the lack of alcohol intoxication, and the absence of a cardiac arrest. Greater adherence to BTF guidelines was associated with higher mortality rates (OR 2.01, 95% CI: 1.56–2.59, P < 0.001), and increase ICU and hospital lengths of stay ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: Adherence rates to BTF guidelines for ICP monitoring in patients with severe TBI were low. Further, these rates varied across centers and were correlated with higher mortality and morbidity rates. Although ICP insertion may be an indicator of TBI severity, the current BTF criteria for insertion of ICP monitors may fail to identify patients likely to benefit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it