MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321376001 · doi:10.1177/08850666231156589

Initial Diagnosis and Management of Acutely Elevated Intracranial Pressure

2023· review· en· W4321376001 on OpenAlexaff
Hashim Kareemi, Michael Pratte, Shane English, Ariel Hendin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineHypertonic salineEtiologyLidocaineIntracranial pressureIntubationTraumatic brain injuryResuscitationStroke (engine)AnesthesiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acutely elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) may have devastating effects on patient mortality and neurologic outcomes, yet its initial detection remains difficult because of the variety of manifestations that it can cause disease states it is associated with. Several treatment guidelines exist for specific disease processes such as trauma or ischemic stroke, but their recommendations may not apply to other causes. In the acute setting, management decisions must often be made before the underlying cause is known. In this review, we present an organized, evidence-based approach to the recognition and management of patients with suspected or confirmed elevated ICP in the first minutes to hours of resuscitation. We explore the utility of invasive and noninvasive methods of diagnosis, including history, physical examination, imaging, and ICP monitors. We synthesize various guidelines and expert recommendations and identify core management principles including noninvasive maneuvers, neuroprotective intubation and ventilation strategies, and pharmacologic therapies such as ketamine, lidocaine, corticosteroids, and the hyperosmolar agents mannitol and hypertonic saline. Although an in-depth discussion of the definitive management of each etiology is beyond the scope of this review, our goal is to provide an empirical approach to these time-sensitive, critical presentations in their initial stages.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intensive Care MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207