MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390974297 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-51457-1

Central autonomic network and early prognosis in patients with disorders of consciousness

2024· article· en· W4390974297 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Riganello, Martina Vatrano, Maria Daniela Cortese, Paolo Tonin, Andrea Soddu

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilitySample entropyComa (optics)MedicineMinimally conscious stateAutonomic nervous systemCategorizationInternal medicineSupport vector machineCardiologyAutonomic functionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationConsciousnessPsychologyAudiologyHeart rateNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Blood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central autonomic network (CAN) plays a crucial role in modulating the autonomic nervous system. Heart rate variability (HRV) is a valuable marker for assessing CAN function in disorders of consciousness (DOC) patients. We used HRV analysis for early prognosis in 58 DOC patients enrolled within ten days of hospitalization. They underwent a five-minute electrocardiogram during baseline and acoustic/visual stimulation. The coma recovery scale-revised (CRS-R) was used to define the patient's consciousness level and categorize the good/bad outcome at three months. The high-frequency Power Spectrum Density and the standard deviation of normal-to-normal peaks in baseline, the sample entropy during the stimulation, and the time from injury features were used in the support vector machine analysis (SVM) for outcome prediction. The SVM predicted the patients' outcome with an accuracy of 96% in the training test and 100% in the validation test, underscoring its potential to provide crucial clinical information about prognosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207