Prolonged disorders of consciousness: a critical evaluation of the new UK guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2020, the Royal College of Physicians in the UK published national guidelines on the management of patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness, updating their 2013 guidance 'particularly in relation to recent developments in assessment and management and … changes in the law governing … the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration'. The report's primary focus is on patients who could live for many years with treatment and care. This update, by a neurologist, an imaging neuroscientist, and a lawyer-ethicist, questions the document's rejection of any significant role for neuroimaging techniques including functional MRI and/or bedside EEG to detect covert consciousness in such patients. We find the reasons for this rejection unconvincing, given (i) the significant advances made in the use of this technology in recent years; and (ii) the wider scope for its use envisaged by the earlier (2018) guidelines issued by the American Academy of Neurology. We suggest that, since around one in five patients diagnosed with prolonged disorders of consciousness are in fact conscious enough to follow commands in a neuroimaging context (i.e. those who are 'covertly conscious' or those with 'cognitive motor dissociation'), and given the clinical, ethical and legal importance of determining whether patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness are legally competent or at least able to express their views and feelings, the guidance from the Royal College of Physicians requires urgent review.
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 | 0.058 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".