MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coma

2009· review· en· W4235640292 on OpenAlexaff
G. Bryan Young

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComa (optics)UnconsciousnessReticular activating systemHypothermiaAnesthesiaMedicineArousalThalamusNeuroscienceMinimally conscious stateWakefulnessPersistent vegetative stateBrain damageIntensive care medicineReticular formationElectroencephalographyPsychologyConsciousnessCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coma is a state of unarousable unconsciousness due to dysfunction of the brain's ascending reticular activating system (ARAS), which is responsible for arousal and the maintenance of wakefulness. Anatomically and physiologically the ARAS has a redundancy of pathways and neurotransmitters; this may explain why coma is usually transient (seldom lasting more than 3 weeks). Emergence from coma is succeeded by outcomes ranging from the vegetative state to complete recovery, depending on the severity of damage to the cerebral cortex, the thalamus, and their integrated function. The clinical and laboratory assessments of the comatose patient are reviewed here, along with an analysis of how various conditions (structural brain lesions, metabolic and toxic disorders, trauma, infections, seizures, hypothermia, and hyperthermia) produce coma. Management issues include the determination of the cause and reversibility (prognosis) of neurological impairment, support of the patient, definitive treatment when possible, and the ethical considerations for those situations where marked disability is predicted with certainty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.011

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations93
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207