MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284700708 · doi:10.1089/neu.2022.0217

Cerebral Autoregulation Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: An Overview of Recent Advances in Personalized Medicine

2022· review· en· W4284700708 on OpenAlexaff
Frederick A. Zeiler, Marcel Aries, Marek Czosnyka, Peter Smielewski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryCerebral autoregulationMedicineIntensive care medicineAutoregulationCerebral perfusion pressureIntracranial pressureCerebral blood flowIntensive care unitPersonalized medicineIntensive careNeuroscienceBlood pressureBioinformaticsPsychologyAnesthesiaInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impaired cerebral autoregulation (CA) in moderate/severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been identified as a strong associate with poor long-term outcomes, with recent data highlighting its dominance over cerebral physiological dysfunction seen in the acute phase post-injury. With advances in bedside continuous cerebral physiological signal processing, continuously derived metrics of CA capacity have been described over the past two decades, leading to improvements in cerebral physiological insult detection and development of novel personalized approaches to TBI care in the intensive care unit (ICU). This narrative review focuses on highlighting the concept of continuous CA monitoring and consequences of impairment in moderate/severe TBI. Further, we provide a comprehensive description and overview of the main personalized cerebral physiological targets, based on CA monitoring, that are emerging as strong associates with patient outcomes. The CA-based personalized targets, such as optimal cerebral perfusion pressure (CPPopt), lower/upper limit of regulation (LLR/ULR), and individualized intracranial pressure (iICP) are positioned to change the way we care for patients with TBI in the ICU, moving away from the "one treatment fits all" paradigm of current guideline-based therapeutic approaches toward a true personalized medicine approach tailored to the individual patient. Future perspectives regarding research needs in this field are also discussed.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations71
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207