MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392097083 · doi:10.3390/s24051453

Time-Series Modeling and Forecasting of Cerebral Pressure–Flow Physiology: A Scoping Systematic Review of the Human and Animal Literature

2024· article· en· W4392097083 on OpenAlexafffund
Nuray Vakitbilir, Logan Froese, Alwyn Gomez, Amanjyot Singh Sainbhi, Kevin Y. Stein, Abrar Islam, Tobias Bergmann, Izabella Marquez, Fiorella Amenta, Younis Ibrahim, Frederick A. Zeiler

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation Brain CanadaResearch ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre Foundation
KeywordsCerebral perfusion pressureComputer scienceCerebral blood flowMachine learningArtificial intelligenceCerebral autoregulationSupport vector machineMedicineBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modeling and forecasting of cerebral pressure-flow dynamics in the time-frequency domain have promising implications for veterinary and human life sciences research, enhancing clinical care by predicting cerebral blood flow (CBF)/perfusion, nutrient delivery, and intracranial pressure (ICP)/compliance behavior in advance. Despite its potential, the literature lacks coherence regarding the optimal model type, structure, data streams, and performance. This systematic scoping review comprehensively examines the current landscape of cerebral physiological time-series modeling and forecasting. It focuses on temporally resolved cerebral pressure-flow and oxygen delivery data streams obtained from invasive/non-invasive cerebral sensors. A thorough search of databases identified 88 studies for evaluation, covering diverse cerebral physiologic signals from healthy volunteers, patients with various conditions, and animal subjects. Methodologies range from traditional statistical time-series analysis to innovative machine learning algorithms. A total of 30 studies in healthy cohorts and 23 studies in patient cohorts with traumatic brain injury (TBI) concentrated on modeling CBFv and predicting ICP, respectively. Animal studies exclusively analyzed CBF/CBFv. Of the 88 studies, 65 predominantly used traditional statistical time-series analysis, with transfer function analysis (TFA), wavelet analysis, and autoregressive (AR) models being prominent. Among machine learning algorithms, support vector machine (SVM) was widely utilized, and decision trees showed promise, especially in ICP prediction. Nonlinear models and multi-input models were prevalent, emphasizing the significance of multivariate modeling and forecasting. This review clarifies knowledge gaps and sets the stage for future research to advance cerebral physiologic signal analysis, benefiting neurocritical care applications.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207