MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398200019 · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ad4f4a

Continuous monitoring methods of cerebral compliance and compensatory reserve: a scoping review of human literature

2024· review· en· W4398200019 on OpenAlexafffund
Abrar Islam, Logan Froese, Tobias Bergmann, Alwyn Gomez, Amanjyot Singh Sainbhi, Nuray Vakitbilir, Kevin Y. Stein, Izabella Marquez, Younis Ibrahim, Frederick A. Zeiler

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIntracranial pressureContext (archaeology)MedicineTranscranial DopplerCerebrospinal fluidTraumatic brain injuryInternal medicineCardiologyAnesthesiaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective. Continuous monitoring of cerebrospinal compliance (CC) / cerebrospinal compensatory reserve (CCR) is crucial for timely interventions and preventing more substantial deterioration in the context of acute neural injury, as it enables the early detection of abnormalities in intracranial pressure (ICP). However, to date, the literature on continuous CC/CCR monitoring is scattered and occasionally challenging to consolidate. Approach. We subsequently conducted a systematic scoping review of the human literature to highlight the available continuous CC/CCR monitoring methods. Main results. This systematic review incorporated a total number of 76 studies, covering diverse patient types and focusing on three primary continuous CC or CCR monitoring metrics and methods—Moving Pearson’s correlation between ICP pulse amplitude waveform and ICP, referred to as RAP, the Spiegelberg Compliance Monitor, changes in cerebral blood flow velocity with respect to the alternation of ICP measured through transcranial doppler (TCD), changes in centroid metric, high frequency centroid (HFC) or higher harmonics centroid (HHC), and the P2/P1 ratio which are the distinct peaks of ICP pulse wave. The majority of the studies in this review encompassed RAP metric analysis ( n = 43), followed by Spiegelberg Compliance Monitor ( n = 11), TCD studies ( n = 9), studies on the HFC/HHC ( n = 5), and studies on the P2/P1 ratio studies ( n = 6). These studies predominantly involved acute traumatic neural injury (i.e. Traumatic Brain Injury) patients and those with hydrocephalus. RAP is the most extensively studied of the five focused methods and exhibits diverse applications. However, most papers lack clarification on its clinical applicability, a circumstance that is similarly observed for the other methods. Significance. Future directions involve exploring RAP patterns and identifying characteristics and artifacts, investigating neuroimaging correlations with continuous CC/CCR and integrating machine learning, holding promise for simplifying CC/CCR determination. These approaches should aim to enhance the precision and accuracy of the metric, making it applicable in clinical practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.421
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.074 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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