Diagnostic accuracy of ancillary tests for death by neurologic criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ancillary tests are frequently used in death determination by neurologic criteria (DNC), particularly when the clinical neurologic examination is unreliable. Nevertheless, their diagnostic accuracy has not been extensively studied. Our objective was to synthesize the sensitivity and specificity of commonly used ancillary tests for DNC. SOURCE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and CINAHL Ebsco from their inception to 4 February 2022. We selected cohort and case-control studies including patients with 1) clinically diagnosed death by neurologic criteria or 2) clinically suspected death by neurologic criteria who underwent ancillary testing for DNC. We excluded studies without a priori diagnostic criteria and studies conducted solely on pediatric patients. Accepted reference standards were clinical examination, four-vessel conventional angiography, and radionuclide imaging. Data were directly extracted from published reports. We assessed the methodological quality of studies with the QUADAS-2 tool and estimated ancillary test sensitivities and specificities using hierarchical Bayesian models with diffuse priors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall, 137 records met the selection criteria. One study (0.7%) had a low risk of bias in all QUADAS-2 domains. Among clinically diagnosed death by neurologic criteria patients (n = 8,891), ancillary tests had similar pooled sensitivities (range, 0.82-0.93). Sensitivity heterogeneity was greater within (σ = 0.10-0.15) than between (σ = 0.04) ancillary test types. Among clinically suspected death by neurologic criteria patients (n = 2,732), pooled ancillary test sensitivities ranged between 0.81 and 1.00 and specificities between 0.87 and 1.00. Most estimates had high statistical uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Studies assessing ancillary test diagnostic accuracy have an unclear or high risk of bias. High-quality studies are required to thoroughly validate ancillary tests for DNC. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42013005907); registered 7 October 2013.
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 | 0.022 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".