Artifact identification and removal methodologies for intracranial pressure signals: a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Intracranial pressure measurement (ICP) is an essential component of deriving of multivariate data metrics foundational to improving understanding of high temporal relationships in cerebral physiology. A significant barrier to this work is artifact ridden data. As such, the objective of this review was to examine the existing literature pertinent to ICP artifact management. Methods. A search of five databases (BIOSIS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library) was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review. The search question examined the methods for artifact management for ICP signals measured in human/animals. Results. The search yielded 5875 unique results. There were 19 articles included in this review based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and article references. Each method presented was categorized as: (1) valid ICP pulse detection algorithms and (2) ICP artifact identification and removal methods. Machine learning-based and filter-based methods indicated the best results for artifact management; however, it was not possible to elucidate a single most robust method. Conclusion. There is a significant lack of standardization in the metrics of effectiveness in artifact removal which makes comparison difficult across studies. Differences in artifacts observed on patient neuropathological health and recording methodologies have not been thoroughly examined and introduce additional uncertainty regarding effectiveness. Significance. This work provides critical insights into existing literature pertaining to ICP artifact management as it highlights holes in the literature that need to be adequately addressed in the establishment of robust artifact management methodologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".