MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386818161 · doi:10.1111/anae.16132

The use of cerebral <scp>CT</scp> angiography as an ancillary investigation to support a clinical diagnosis of death using neurological criteria

2023· letter· en· W4386818161 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Radha Sundaram, Kevin Rooney, S. K. Koteeswaran

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral angiographyAngiographyRadiologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We welcome the publication of the guideline by Thomas et al. [1]. It offers clear and comprehensive instructions on the indications, conduct and interpretation of 4-point CT angiography for ancillary testing to aid the confirmation of death by neurological criteria. However, the guideline does not include any specific comment on isolated infratentorial brain pathology or injury. The Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine form for diagnosing death using neurological criteria states that lesions primarily located in the brainstem or posterior fossa such as infratentorial stroke or brain injury are a ‘red flag’ patient group necessitating diagnostic caution and ancillary or confirmatory tests, such as cerebral CT angiography, to confirm death by neurological criteria [2]. This group of patients, while fulfilling the criteria for death by neurological criteria, may still have supratentorial blood flow when CT angiography is performed. A recent Canadian guideline recommends that CT angiography is repeated in this clinical situation because these patients will eventually have complete cessation of both supratentorial and infratentorial flow, supporting the confirmation of death by neurological criteria [3]. There is also some variability in how long this could take because of factors such as ongoing somatic support or posterior fossa decompression surgery like a ventriculostomy. Furthermore, an Academy of Medical Royal Colleges document [4] states the diagnosis of death because of cessation of brainstem function does not need to include the cessation of all neurological activity in the brain. Accordingly, supratentorial blood flow may still be present in a patient with brainstem death even though they have no form of consciousness associated with human life, such as the ability to feel, be aware or do anything [4]. This is in contrast to countries like Canada which has embraced a brain-based definition of death [5]. The distinction between brainstem death and whole-brain death is not as clear in the UK guidance and we would be interested to know the authors' views on a brain-based definition of death [5].

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207