MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

514: EVALUATION OF AMANTADINE ON COGNITIVE OUTCOMES IN TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PATIENTS

2022· article· en· W4313235953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelsey Tate, Vanessa Pellegrino, Corey Goodwin, Justin Weppner, Michelle C. Marks, Brad McDaniel

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmantadineGlasgow Coma ScaleComa (optics)AnesthesiaTraumatic brain injuryMinimally conscious stateMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPersistent vegetative stateGlasgow Outcome ScalePediatricsCognitionPsychiatryConsciousnessPsychologyCognitive impairmentPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) can result in complications of prolonged disorders of consciousness (DOC) including a coma, vegetative, or minimally conscious state. Patients with DOC are assessed utilizing the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) score. Amantadine may provide an accelerated rate of return to consciousness for TBI patients, but literature assessing its use in relation to cognitive recovery during acute hospitalization is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of amantadine in improving wakefulness for TBI patients during the acute phase of hospitalization. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, single-group cohort review of patients admitted to Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital receiving amantadine for TBI. Patients were excluded if they received amantadine for less than 3 consecutive days, prior to admission, or for alternative indications. The primary outcome was the median change in cognition 7 days after therapy initiation and at discharge. Descriptive statistics and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) were utilized for data analysis. Results: Of 96 subjects identified, 75 were included for analysis. The median change in cognition after initiation of amantadine as determined by the GCS was 2 (n=65) at day 7 and 6 (n=75) at discharge, in which the median hospital length of stay was 22 days. The median changes in AMPAC scores were 3 and 5, respectively. The median duration of amantadine therapy was 11 days with a usual daily dose of 100 to 200 mg. The most common adverse effect observed was tachycardia, followed by insomnia. A two-way ANOVA revealed that there was not a statistically significant interaction between TBI severity and the presence of alternative psychotropic medications at day 7 or discharge (p=0.84, p=0.22). TBI severity alone had a significant effect on GCS at discharge, but not at day 7 (p< 0.0001, p=0.12). Conclusions: Amantadine may play an important role in TBI patients, as GCS and AM-PAC scores increased after starting therapy. The severity of TBI likely contributed to the changes observed in GCS scores. Given the small sample size and lack of comparator group, it is difficult to determine the clinical significance of amantadine use. More data is needed to support the use of amantadine in acute TBI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→