MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292295144 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.859894

Consensus recommendations on therapeutic hypothermia after minimally invasive intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation from the hypothermia for intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH) working group

2022· article· en· W4292295144 on OpenAlexaff
Turner S. Baker, Christopher P. Kellner, Frederick Colbourne, Fred Rincón, Rainer Kollmar, Neeraj Badjatia, Neha Dangayach, J Mocco, Magdy Selim, Patrick Lyden, Kees H. Polderman, Stephan A. Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracerebral hemorrhageHypothermiaClinical trialIntensive care medicineNeurointensive careRandomized controlled trialHematomaProtocol (science)PopulationStandard of careSurgeryAnesthesiaPathologySubarachnoid hemorrhageAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and purpose: Therapeutic hypothermia (TH), or targeted temperature management (TTM), is a classic treatment option for reducing inflammation and potentially other destructive processes across a wide range of pathologies, and has been successfully used in numerous disease states. The ability for TH to improve neurological outcomes seems promising for inflammatory injuries but has yet to demonstrate clinical benefit in the intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patient population. Minimally invasive ICH evacuation also presents a promising option for ICH treatment with strong preclinical data but has yet to demonstrate functional improvement in large randomized trials. The biochemical mechanisms of action of ICH evacuation and TH appear to be synergistic, and thus combining hematoma evacuation with cooling therapy could provide synergistic benefits. The purpose of this working group was to develop consensus recommendations on optimal clinical trial design and outcomes for the use of therapeutic hypothermia in ICH in conjunction with minimally invasive ICH evacuation. Methods: An international panel of experts on the intersection of critical-care TH and ICH was convened to analyze available evidence and form a consensus on critical elements of a focal cooling protocol and clinical trial design. Three focused sessions and three full-group meetings were held virtually from December 2020 to February 2021. Each meeting focused on a specific subtopic, allowing for guided, open discussion. Results: These recommendations detail key elements of a clinical cooling protocol and an outline for the roll-out of clinical trials to test and validate the use of TH in conjunction with hematoma evacuation as well as late-stage protocols to improve the cooling approach. The combined use of systemic normothermia and localized moderate (33.5°C) hypothermia was identified as the most promising treatment strategy. Conclusions: These recommendations provide a general outline for the use of TH after minimally invasive ICH evacuation. More research is needed to further refine the use and combination of these promising treatment paradigms for this patient population.

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)0.159
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.172
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1590.172
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.014
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0180.012
Research integrity0.0330.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207