Clinical and advanced neurophysiology in the prognostic and diagnostic evaluation of disorders of consciousness: review of an IFCN-endorsed expert group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of spontaneous EEG activity and evoked potentialsis a cornerstone of the instrumental evaluation of patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC). Thepast few years have witnessed an unprecedented surge in EEG-related research applied to the prediction and detection of recovery of consciousness after severe brain injury,opening up the prospect that new concepts and tools may be available at the bedside. This paper provides a comprehensive, critical overview of bothconsolidated and investigational electrophysiological techniquesfor the prognostic and diagnostic assessment of DoC.We describe conventional clinical EEG approaches, then focus on evoked and event-related potentials, and finally we analyze the potential of novel research findings. In doing so, we (i) draw a distinction between acute, prolonged and chronic phases of DoC, (ii) attempt to relate both clinical and research findings to the underlying neuronal processes and (iii) discuss technical and conceptual caveats.The primary aim of this narrative review is to bridge the gap between standard and emerging electrophysiological measures for the detection and prediction of recovery of consciousness. The ultimate scope is to provide a reference and common ground for academic researchers active in the field of neurophysiology and clinicians engaged in intensive care unit and rehabilitation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".