Descriptive analysis of low versus elevated intracranial pressure on cerebral physiology in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To date, the cerebral physiologic consequences of persistently elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) have been based on either low-resolution physiologic data or retrospective high-frequency data from single centers. The goal of this study was to provide a descriptive multi-center analysis of the cerebral physiologic consequences of ICP, comparing those with normal ICP to those with elevated ICP. Methods The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) High-Resolution Intensive Care Unit (HR-ICU) sub-study cohort was utilized. The first 3 days of physiologic recording were analyzed, evaluating and comparing those patients with mean ICP < 15 mmHg versus those with mean ICP > 20 mmHg. Various cerebral physiologic parameters were derived and evaluated, including ICP, brain tissue oxygen (PbtO2), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), pulse amplitude of ICP (AMP), cerebrovascular reactivity, and cerebral compensatory reserve. The percentage time and dose above/below thresholds were also assessed. Basic descriptive statistics were employed in comparing the two cohorts. Results 185 patients were included, with 157 displaying a mean ICP below 15 mmHg and 28 having a mean ICP above 20 mmHg. For admission demographics, only admission Marshall and Rotterdam CT scores were statistically different between groups (p = 0.017 and p = 0.030, respectively). The high ICP group displayed statistically worse CPP, PbtO2, cerebrovascular reactivity, and compensatory reserve. The high ICP group displayed worse 6-month mortality (p < 0.0001) and poor outcome (p = 0.014), based on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Score. Conclusions Low versus high ICP during the first 72 h after moderate/severe TBI is associated with significant disparities in CPP, AMP, cerebrovascular reactivity, cerebral compensatory reserve, and brain tissue oxygenation metrics. Such ICP extremes appear to be strongly related to 6-month patient outcomes, in keeping with previous literature. This work provides multi-center validation for previously described single-center retrospective results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".