The reticular activating system: a narrative review of discovery, evolving understanding, and relevance to current formulations of brain death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
century progressively localized the regions involved in consciousness to the reticular activating system (RAS) and its ascending projections. The first description of the RAS emerged in 1949 through seminal experiments performed by Moruzzi and Magoun in feline brainstems; additional experiments in the 1950s revealed connections between the RAS and the thalamus and neocortical structures. This knowledge has allowed for the explanation of disorders of consciousness with exquisite anatomic precision. The clinical relevance of the RAS is further apparent in modern definitions of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), which require demonstration of the complete and permanent loss of capacity for consciousness as one of their core criteria. BD/DNC is currently understood across jurisdictions in terms of "whole brain" and "brainstem" formulations. Although their clinical examination between formulations is indistinguishable, policies for BD/DNC declaration may differ in the rare scenario of patients with isolated infratentorial brain injuries, in which ancillary testing is advised in the whole brain formulation but not the brainstem formulation. Canadian guidelines acknowledge that the distinction between whole brain and brainstem formulations is unclear with respect to clinical implications for patients with isolated infratentorial injuries. This has led to variability in Canadian clinicians' use of ancillary testing when the mechanism of BD/DNC is suspected to be an isolated infratentorial injury. The present narrative review highlights these concepts and explores implications for determination of BD/DNC in Canada, with specific emphasis on the RAS and its relevance to both formulations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".