Association Between Clinical Measures of Depth of Sedation and Multimodal Cerebral Physiology in Acute Traumatic Neural Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurointensive care primarily focuses on secondary injury reduction, utilizing a variety of guideline-based approaches (including administration of high-dose sedation) to reduce the injured state. However, titration of sedation is currently based on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), a subjective clinical grading score of a patient's response to external physical stimuli, and not an objective measure. Therefore, it is likely that there exists substantial variation in objective sedation depth for a given clinical grade in these patients, leading to undesired sedation depths and cerebral physiological consequences. Improper sedation can impede cerebral autoregulation, emphasizing the critical need for optimal sedation in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. This study evaluates the relationship between RASS to an objective measure of depth of sedation (bispectral index, BIS) and cerebral physiological measures. Fifty-nine patients were assessed using Jonckheere-Terpstra testing to compare various key physiologies with RASS. RASS (-5 through 0 categories) showed no statistically significant relationship between BIS and cerebral physiological parameters, after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Furthermore, it is crucial to note that within each RASS value, the distribution of the physiological measures all had high variability. As an exemplar, for RASS values of -5 and -4, BIS ranged from near 0 (burst suppression levels) up to over 80 (near awake states). BIS and other cerebral physiologies displayed substantial variation across each RASS category. This suggests that RASS as a means to titrate sedative medication for the goal of neuroprotection is insufficient. More momentary, individualized determination of sedation depth is required for TBI patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".