P.050 Perspectives on the use of ancillary tests for determining neurological death: a survey of Canadian intensivists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ancillary tests are indicated to diagnose death by neurological criteria whenever clinical neurological examination is unreliable, but their use is variable and subject to debate. Methods: Survey of Canadian intensivists providing care for potential organ donors. We included closed-ended questions and different clinical scenarios regarding the use of ancillary tests. Results: Among 550 identified intensivists, 249 completed the survey. Respondents indicated they would be comfortable diagnosing death based on neurological examination without ancillary tests in the following scenarios: movement in response to stimulation (48%), spontaneous peripheral movement (31%), inability to evaluate upper/lower extremity responses (34%) or both oculocephalic and oculo-caloric reflexes (17%), presence of high cervical spinal cord injury (16%) and within 24 hours of hypoxemic-ischemic brain injury (15%). Furthermore, 93% agreed that ancillary tests should always be conducted when a complete neurological examination is impossible, 89% if there remains possibility of residual sedative effect and 59% in suspected isolated brainstem death. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that Canadian intensivists have different perceptions on what constitutes a complete and reliable clinical neurological examination for determining death by neurologic criteria. Some self-reported practices also diverge from national recommendations. Further investigation and education are required to align and standardize medical practice across physicians and systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".