MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205187844 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14654556.v1

Non-Invasive Modeling of Intracranial Hypertension from Physiological Channels

2021· preprint· en· W4205187844 on OpenAlexaff
Parisa Naraei

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
KeywordsIntracranial pressureBlood pressureMedicineCluster analysisComputer scienceCatheterArtificial intelligenceBiomedical engineeringAnesthesiaInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Intracranial pressure (ICP), the pressure within the cranium reflects three elements: cerebrospinal fluid, brain tissue and blood pressure. High ICP (above 20 mmHg) is called intracranial hypertension (ICH) which is due to the tumour, swelling or the internal bleeding of brain and may cause secondary damage to the brain. ICP is a crucial parameter in diagnosis of brain injuries. Two models which utilize machine learning techniques to anticipate ICH and assist in clinical decision making were developed in the present thesis. ICP can be monitored through the invasive techniques (i.e., inserting an intraventricular catheter through the skull). Despite the high accuracy, the episodes of ICH can also be manually identified only after placement of catheter which is accompanied by lots of technical difficulties. Furthermore, the ICP signal might not be available continuously or may include unwanted noise that could introduce more complication to the diagnosis and treatment procedure. Considering the difficulties of the invasive techniques, a non-invasive model, capable to predict the ICH helps to save time, estimate the missing ICPs, predict the ICP in advance and accelerate medical intervention. The present thesis introduces two machine learning models to resolve the current limitations: 1- Non-invasive prediction of ICP labels 10 minutes in advance where the status of ICP (normal / ICH) is predicted based on the two components extracted from the physiological signals such as mean arterial blood pressure and respiration rate. 2- Wavelet – clustering where a machine learning solution for ICP estimation using a hybrid wavelet clustering is proposed. The episodes of ICP and derived from ICP (such as cerebral perfusion pressure) are excluded from the second model.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207