Infratentorial Brain Injury Among Patients Suspected of Death by Neurologic Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of data on the frequency and prognosis of infratentorial brain injury among patients suspected of death by neurologic criteria (DNC), which likely contributes to scientific uncertainty regarding the role of isolated brainstem death in DNC determination. Our aim was to synthesize the prevalence, characteristics, and evolution of infratentorial brain injury, including isolated brainstem death, among patients suspected of DNC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review by searching Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, CINAHL Complete, and the gray literature from inception to March 26, 2021. We selected cohort and cross-sectional studies, case reports, and case series that included patients suspected of DNC. Two study investigators independently performed study selection, data collection, and risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcomes were the respective prevalence of infratentorial brain injury and isolated brainstem death, which we meta-analyzed using mixed-effects Bayesian hierarchical models with diffuse priors. Our secondary outcomes were the characteristics and evolution of patients with infratentorial brain injury and isolated brainstem death. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the selection criteria, most of which were of moderate to high risk of bias. Among patients suspected of DNC, the prevalence of infratentorial brain injury ranged from 2% to 16% (n = 3,602, mean prevalence: 6.3%, 95% highest density interval [2.4%-14.2%]), whereas the prevalence of isolated brainstem death ranged from 1% to 4% (n = 3,692, mean prevalence: 1.5%, 95% highest density interval [0.5%-3.9%]). A total of 38 isolated brainstem death cases with data on clinical characteristics and/or evolution were included. All had infratentorial strokes. Twenty patients had EEG background activity in the α or θ frequencies, 19 had preserved cerebral blood flow, 2 had preserved supratentorial cerebral perfusion, 2 had cortical responses to visual evoked potentials, and 1 had cortical responses to somatosensory evoked potentials. At the latest follow-up, 28 had progressed to whole-brain death. DISCUSSION: Studies with moderate to high risk of bias suggest that infratentorial brain injury is relatively uncommon among patients suspected of DNC. Isolated brainstem death is rarer and seems to carry a high risk of progression to whole-brain death. These findings require further high-quality investigation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".