MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404416615 · doi:10.14740/jnr779

Tracheostomy and Gastrostomy After Decompressive Craniectomy: What Surrogates Need to Know

2024· article· en· W4404416615 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chase Schlesselman, N. Scott Litofsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, University of MissouriUniversity of Missouri
KeywordsMedicineDecompressive craniectomyGastrostomySurgeryGeneral surgeryTraumatic brain injury

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Many patients require tracheostomy or feeding gastrostomy for airway stability and proper nutrition after decompressive craniectomy (DC) for trauma or stroke. Tracheostomy and/or gastrostomy implementation may impact decisions for end-of-life care. The authors hypothesized that patients surviving DC were more likely to have received a tracheostomy and/or gastrostomy than those who did not survive. Furthermore, the authors hypothesized that patients who did not receive a tracheostomy and/or gastrostomy were more likely to proceed to withdrawal of life-preserving care as the alternative. Methods: Data collected from DC patients from 2014 to 2022 included age, admission setting, diagnosis (stroke, trauma), admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), preoperative GCS, time to decompression after presentation, and socioeconomic factors. Patients with tracheostomy and/or gastrostomy were compared to patients not receiving tracheostomy or gastrostomy for the above characteristics and their outcomes (discharge disposition, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), modified Rankin Scale (mRS), status of inpatient hospice/palliative care, and cause of death). Statistical tests used for analysis included Chi-square, two-sided t -test, and multiple logistic regression models (significance < 0.05). Results: Sixty-six patients were included. More patients without tracheostomy and/or gastrostomy (32 patients) died than patients who received tracheostomy and/or gastrostomy (34 patients) (P = 0.0394). GOS and mRS did not differ between patients with tracheostomy and/or gastrostomy and patients without tracheostomy or gastrostomy (P = 0.1331 and 0.5421, respectively). Patients without tracheostomy or gastrostomy were more likely to have been placed on general inpatient hospice (GIP) (P = 0.0183) or had comfort care initiated (P = 0.00913). Conclusions: Patients who survive after DC are more likely to have received tracheostomy and/or gastrostomy than those who did not survive. Patients who seek end-of-life care, including withdrawal of care and GIP, are more likely to not receive tracheostomy or gastrostomy. J Neurol Res. 2024;14(2):59-67 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr779

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.349 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology ResearchSame topicTracheal and airway disordersFrench-language works237,207