MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404636945 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006521

Myoclonus After Cardiac Arrest: Need for Standardization—A Systematic Review and Research Proposal on Terminology

2024· review· en· W4404636945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pia De Stefano, Markus Leitinger, Francesco Misirocchi, Hervé Quintard, Eugen Trinka

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyoclonusMedicineStatus epilepticusPediatricsAnesthesiaPsychiatryEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Although myoclonus less than or equal to 72 hours after cardiac arrest (CA) is often viewed as a single entity, there is considerable heterogeneity in its clinical and electrophysiology characteristics, and its strength of association with outcome. We reviewed definitions, electroencephalogram, and outcome of myoclonus post-CA to assess the need for consensus and the potential role of electroencephalogram for further research. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. STUDY SELECTION: English-language adult (≥ 18 yr) studies from 1966 to May 31, 2024, reporting myoclonus, myoclonic status/status myoclonus (MyS/SM), myoclonic status epilepticus (MSE), and/or early Lance-Adams Syndrome (eLAS) less than or equal to 72 hours post-CA. All study designs were independently screened by two authors. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on patients presenting myoclonus, MyS/SM, MSE, and eLAS less than or equal to 72 hours post-CA, along with their definitions, electroencephalogram, and outcomes were extracted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane-Risk-of-Bias Assessment tool were used to evaluate study quality (PROSPERO n.CRD42023438107). DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 585 identified articles, 119 met the inclusion criteria, revealing substantial heterogeneity in definitions, electroencephalogram, and outcomes. Among 3881 patients, myoclonus was reported in 2659, MyS/SM in 883, MSE in 569, and eLAS in 40. Among patients with a defined outcome, a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale of 1-2 was reported in 9.8% of patients with myoclonus, 5.8% with MyS/SM, 5.7% with MSE, and 82.0% with eLAS. Electroencephalogram was recorded in 2714 patients (69.9%). CPC of 1-2 was observed in 1.6% of patients with suppression/suppression burst (SB)/unreactive (U) electroencephalogram, 11.3% with non-SB/U electroencephalogram and status epilepticus (SE), and 22.3% with non-SB/U electroencephalogram without SE. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in definitions resulted in weak associations with outcomes. We propose to investigate myoclonus by including related electroencephalogram patterns: myoclonus associated with suppression/SB background electroencephalogram, myoclonus with nonsuppression/SB background but SE-electroencephalogram, and myoclonus with nonsuppression/SB background without SE-electroencephalogram. This pragmatic research approach should be validated in future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.223
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.394
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2230.394
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.014
Bibliometrics0.0270.026
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0140.027
Open science0.0100.009
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.397 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207