Evaluating the Sum of Eye and Motor Components of the Glasgow Coma Score As a Predictor of Extubation Failure in Patients With Acute Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between the pre-extubation sum of eye and motor components of the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS-EM) and odds of extubation failure in patients with acute brain injury being liberated from mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective, multicenter observational study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03400904). SETTING: Sixty-three hospital sites worldwide, with patient recruitment from January 2018 to November 2020. PATIENTS: One thousand one hundred fifty-two critically ill patients with acute brain injury, with a median age of 54 years, of whom 783 (68.0%) were male, 559 (48.5%) had traumatic brain injury, and 905 (78.6%) had a GCS-EM greater than 8 before extubation (scores range from 2 to 10). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: GCS-EM was computed in intubated patients on the day of extubation. The main outcome was extubation failure, defined as unplanned reintubation within 5 days of extubation. Analyses used multilevel logistic regression with adjustment for patient characteristics and a random intercept for hospital site. In the primary analysis, GCS-EM was not associated with extubation failure (odds ratio, 1.07 per additional point; 95% CI, 0.87-1.31). Findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses that: 1) used different adjustment covariates, 2) included a verbal estimate to derive an overall GCS, 3) accounted for missing data, 4) considered a 2-day time interval to define extubation failure, 5) accounted for competing risks, and 6) used a propensity score-based model. There was no association between GCS-EM and extubation outcome in subgroups defined by brain injury diagnosis or age. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, contemporary, multicenter cohort of patients with acute brain injury, we found no association between the GCS-EM and odds of extubation failure. However, few patients had a pre-extubation GCS-EM less than or equal to 8, and the possibility of a true prognostic association in patients with low scores is not excluded.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".