MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306756083 · doi:10.1007/s00701-022-05383-8

Current state of high-fidelity multimodal monitoring in traumatic brain injury

2022· review· en· W4306756083 on OpenAlex
Caroline Lindblad, Rahul Raj, Frederick A. Zeiler, Eric Peter Thelin

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Neurochirurgica · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchStockholms Läns LandstingCanada Foundation for InnovationResearch ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre FoundationUniversity of ManitobaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKarolinska InstitutetFamiljen Erling-Perssons Stiftelse
KeywordsMedicineTraumatic brain injuryIntracranial pressureCerebral perfusion pressureNeuroradiologyNeurointensive careBrain traumaTranscranial DopplerIntracranial pressure monitoringMicrodialysisNeurosurgeryIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaNeurologyInternal medicineSurgeryCerebral blood flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Multimodality monitoring of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is primarily performed in neuro-critical care units to prevent secondary harmful brain insults and facilitate patient recovery. Several metrics are commonly monitored using both invasive and non-invasive techniques. The latest Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines from 2016 provide recommendations and thresholds for some of these. Still, high-level evidence for several metrics and thresholds is lacking. Methods Regarding invasive brain monitoring, intracranial pressure (ICP) forms the cornerstone, and pressures above 22 mmHg should be avoided. From ICP, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) (mean arterial pressure (MAP)–ICP) and pressure reactivity index (PRx) (a correlation between slow waves MAP and ICP as a surrogate for cerebrovascular reactivity) may be derived. In terms of regional monitoring, partial brain tissue oxygen pressure (PbtO 2 ) is commonly used, and phase 3 studies are currently ongoing to determine its added effect to outcome together with ICP monitoring. Cerebral microdialysis (CMD) is another regional invasive modality to measure substances in the brain extracellular fluid. International consortiums have suggested thresholds and management strategies, in spite of lacking high-level evidence. Although invasive monitoring is generally safe, iatrogenic hemorrhages are reported in about 10% of cases, but these probably do not significantly affect long-term outcome. Non-invasive monitoring is relatively recent in the field of TBI care, and research is usually from single-center retrospective experiences. Near-infrared spectrometry (NIRS) measuring regional tissue saturation has been shown to be associated with outcome. Transcranial doppler (TCD) has several tentative utilities in TBI like measuring ICP and detecting vasospasm. Furthermore, serial sampling of biomarkers of brain injury in the blood can be used to detect secondary brain injury development. Conclusions In multimodal monitoring, the most important aspect is data interpretation, which requires knowledge of each metric’s strengths and limitations. Combinations of several modalities might make it possible to discern specific pathologic states suitable for treatment. However, the cost–benefit should be considered as the incremental benefit of adding several metrics has a low level of evidence, thus warranting additional research.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.285 · 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