MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210601484 · doi:10.1007/s10143-022-01746-y

Intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4210601484 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical Review · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisIntracranial pressureSystematic reviewNeurosurgeryCerebral perfusion pressureMEDLINEInternal medicineSurgeryPerfusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) with reduced cerebral perfusion pressure is a well-known cause of secondary brain injury. Previously, there have been some reports describing different supra- and infratentorial ICP measurements depending on the location of the mass effect. Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the issue of optimal ICP monitoring in the infratentorial mass lesion. A literature search of electronic databases (PUBMED, EMBASE) was performed from January 1969 until February 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Two assessors are independently screened for eligible studies reporting the use of simultaneous ICP monitoring in the supra- and infratentorial compartments. For quality assessment of those studies, the New Castle Ottawa Scale was used. The primary outcome was to evaluate the value of supra- and infratentorial ICP measurement, and the secondary outcome was to determine the time threshold until equalization of both values. Current evidence surrounding infratentorial ICP measurement was found to be low to very low quality according to New Castle Ottawa Scale. Eight studies were included in the systematic review, four of them containing human subjects encompassing 27 patients with infratentorial pathology. The pooled data demonstrated significantly higher infratentorial ICP values than supratentorial ICP values 12 h after onset (p < 0.05, 95% CI 3.82-5.38) up to 24 h after onset (p < 0.05; CI 1.14-3.98). After 48-72 h, both ICP measurements equilibrated showing no significant difference. Further, four studies containing 26 pigs and eight dogs showed a simultaneous increase of supra- and infratentorial ICP value according to the increase of supratentorial mass volume; however, there was a significant difference towards lower ICP in the infratentorial compartment compared to the supratentorial compartment. The transtentorial gradient leads to a significant discrepancy between supra- and infratentorial ICP monitoring. Therefore, infratentorial ICP monitoring is warranted in case of posterior fossa lesions for at least 48 h.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.239 · 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