Artificial intelligence and machine learning in disorders of consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies continue to develop, they are being increasingly used to improve the scientific understanding and clinical care of patients with severe disorders of consciousness following acquired brain damage. We here review recent studies that utilized these techniques to reduce the diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty in disorders of consciousness, and to better characterize patients' response to novel therapeutic interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Most papers have focused on differentiating between unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious state, utilizing artificial intelligence to better analyze functional neuroimaging and electroencephalography data. They often proposed new features using conventional machine learning rather than deep learning algorithms. To better predict the outcome of patients with disorders of consciousness, recovery was most often based on the Glasgow Outcome Scale, and traditional machine learning techniques were used in most cases. Machine learning has also been employed to predict the effects of novel therapeutic interventions (e.g., zolpidem and transcranial direct current stimulation). SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence and machine learning can assist in clinical decision-making, including the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy for patients with disorders of consciousness. The performance of these models can be expected to be significantly improved by the use of deep learning techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".