MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictors of poor neurologic outcome after induced mild hypothermia following cardiac arrest

2008· article· en· W4247999440 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypothermiaStatus epilepticusAnesthesiaMyoclonusCardiopulmonary resuscitationReflexComa (optics)ResuscitationShiveringEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several predictors of poor neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest (CA) were proven to be valid. However, these studies preceded the advent of therapeutic induced mild hypothermia (TIMH), which may alter their validity. The objective of this study is to reassess the validity of these predictors in post-CA patients treated with TIMH. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 37 consecutive adults who were comatose after resuscitation from CA and treated with TIMH. RESULTS: None of six patients without pupillary reactivity, six without corneal reflexes on day 3, or eight with myoclonus status epilepticus recovered awareness. Two of 14 patients with motor responses no better than extension at day 3 recovered motor responses only after 6 days post-arrest (one at 5 and one at 6 days post-rewarming) and regained awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Loss of motor responses better than extension on day 3 was not prognostically reliable after therapeutic induced mild hypothermia for comatose cardiac arrest survivors. None of the patients who lost pupillary or corneal reflexes on day 3 or developed myoclonus status epilepticus recovered awareness.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.240 · 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