Use of actigraphy for monitoring agitation and rest-activity cycles in patients with acute traumatic brain injury in the ICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In traumatic brain injury patients (TBI) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), agitation can lead to accidental removal of catheters, devices as well as self-extubation and falls. Actigraphy could be a potential tool to continuously monitor agitation. The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility of monitoring agitation with actigraphs and to compare activity levels in agitated and non-agitated critically ill TBI patients. METHODS: Actigraphs were placed on patients' wrists; 24-hour monitoring was continued until ICU discharge or limitation of therapeutic efforts. Feasibility was assessed by actigraphy recording duration and missing activity count per day. RESULTS: Data from 25 patients were analyzed. The mean number of completed day of actigraphy per patient was 6.5 ± 5.1. The mean missing activity count was 20.3 minutes (±81.7) per day. The mean level of activity measured by raw actigraphy counts per minute over 24 hours was higher in participants with agitation than without agitation. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the feasibility of actigraphy use in TBI patients in the ICU. In the acute phase of TBI, agitated patients have higher levels of activity, confirming the potential of actigraphy to monitor agitation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".