MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validity of Glasgow coma scale and brain computed tomography in predicting outcome of patients with acute traumatic brain injury

2023· article· en· W4390844275 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thikra Hussein

Bibliographic record

VenueBasrah Journal of Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlasgow Coma ScaleTraumatic brain injuryMedicineNeurosurgeryComa (optics)Emergency departmentGlasgow Outcome ScaleHead injuryEmergency medicineRadiologyAnesthesiaSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The most powerful independent prognostic variables were GCS and CT characteristics. Since the introduction of CT imaging, the treatment of patients with head injury has improved considerably and it has become a powerful prognostic tool for improving clinical care in TBI, significantly reducing both morbidity and mortality.Aim of study: To assess the validity of Glasgow Coma Scale and brain computed tomography scan together in predicting outcome of patients presented with traumatic brain injury at emergency department.Patients and methods: A prospective follow up study carried out in Emergency Department of Baghdad Teaching Hospital in Baghdad Medical city for period from 1st of October, 2015 to 30th of September, 2016 on convenient sample of 244 patients with traumatic brain injury. The diagnosis of traumatic brain injury was based on New Orleans Criteria and Canadian Diagnostic Rules and confirmed by Neurosurgery physician. Glasgow coma scale was measured by researcher and interpretation of Glasgow coma scale was done by both researcher and Neurosurgery physician according to Glasgow Coma Score and computerized tomography scan was interpreted by Radiologist.Results: The validity results of Glasgow coma scale regarding traumatic brain injury patients' outcome were sensitivity (100%) and specificity (58.9%), while validity results of computerized tomography scan findings regarding traumatic brain injury patients' outcome were sensitivity (66.6%) and specificity (93.6%). The validity results of Glasgow coma scale findings regarding traumatic brain injury patients' morbidity were sensitivity (70.5%) and specificity (99%), while validity results of computerized tomography scan findings regarding traumatic brain injury patients' morbidity were sensitivity (77.7%) and specificity (99%).Conclusions: The use of both Glasgow coma scale and computerized tomography scan emergency department had valuable results in prediction of morbidity for patients with traumatic brain injury while have no effect for prediction of mortality.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBasrah Journal of Surgery→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→