Brain Oxygen Optimization in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (BOOST-3): a multicentre, randomised, blinded-endpoint, comparative effectiveness study of brain tissue oxygen and intracranial pressure monitoring versus intracranial pressure alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) includes invasive monitoring to prevent secondary brain injuries. Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitor is the main measurement used to that intent but cerebral hypoxia can occur despite normal ICP. This study will assess whether the addition of a brain tissue oxygenation (PbtO 2 ) monitor prevents more secondary injuries that will translate into improved functional outcome. Methods and analysis Multicentre, randomised, blinded-endpoint comparative effectiveness study enrolling 1094 patients with severe TBI monitored with both ICP and PbtO 2 . Patients will be randomised to medical management guided by ICP alone (treating team blinded to PbtO 2 values) or both ICP and PbtO 2 . Management is protocolised according to international guidelines in a tiered approach fashion to maintain ICP <22 mm Hg and PbtO 2 >20 mm Hg. ICP and PbtO 2 will be continuously recorded for a minimum of 5 days. The primary outcome measure is the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended performed at 180 (±30) days by a blinded central examiner. Favourable outcome is defined according to a sliding dichotomy where the definition of favourable outcome varies according to baseline severity. Severity will be defined according to the probability of poor outcome predicted by the IMPACT core model. A large battery of secondary outcomes including granular neuropsychological and quality of life measures will be performed. Ethics and dissemination This has been approved by Advarra Ethics Committee (Pro00030585). Results will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry ( NCT03754114 ).
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".