Markers of brain injury in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To investigate the correlation of serum changes and markers of brain injury (BI) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) with postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) in patients with cerebral aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH).Methods 120 patients diagnosed with aSAH were included. 3 months after surgery, these patients were divided into a normal cognition group and a cognitive dysfunction (CD) group relying on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale.Results The correlations were analysed between the serological changes and the levels of BI markers, such as neurofilament-light (NF-L) protein, Ubisquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1(UCH-L1), Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP), and neuron specific enolase (NSE) in patients after surgery. Hunt-Hess grading standard was employed to determine the severity of aSAH in patients. The mean values of NF-L, UCH-L1, GFAP, and NSE were (8.2 ± 4.3) pg/mL, (0.7 ± 0.3) ng/mL, (2.2 ± 0.4) ng/mL, and (48.5 ± 10.9) ng/mL in patients with severe aSAH, which were remarkably higher than those in patients with mild aSAH [(3.5 ± 0.7) pg/mL, (0.5 ± 0.2) ng/mL, (1.3 ± 0.7) ng/mL, (30.7 ± 8.2) ng/mL]. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the combined prediction of four detections for POCD were 90.80%, 84.20%, and 82.80%, respectively, which were greatly higher than those of four independent predictions (p < 0.05). The combined prediction effect of the four items, with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.938 and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.851-0.926.Conclusions BI markers NF-L, UCH-L1, GFAP, and NSE could be utilized as predictors of POCD in patients with aSAH, deserving a reference value.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".