Characterization of RAP Signal Patterns, Temporal Relationships, and Artifact Profiles Derived from Intracranial Pressure Sensors in Acute Traumatic Neural Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal: Current methodologies for assessing cerebral compliance using pressure sensor technologies are prone to errors and issues with inter- and intra-observer consistency. RAP, a metric for measuring intracranial compensatory reserve (and therefore compliance), holds promise. It is derived using the moving correlation between intracranial pressure (ICP) and the pulse amplitude of ICP (AMP). RAP remains largely unexplored in cases of moderate to severe acute traumatic neural injury (also known as traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The goal of this work is to explore the general description of (a) RAP signal patterns and behaviors derived from ICP pressure transducers, (b) temporal statistical relationships, and (c) the characterization of the artifact profile. Methods: Different summary and statistical measurements were used to describe RAP’s pattern and behaviors, along with performing sub-group analyses. The autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model was employed to outline the time-series structure of RAP across different temporal resolutions using the autoregressive (p-order) and moving average orders (q-order). After leveraging the time-series structure of RAP, similar methods were applied to ICP and AMP for comparison with RAP. Finally, key features were identified to distinguish artifacts in RAP. This might involve leveraging ICP/AMP signals and statistical structures. Results: The mean and time spent within the RAP threshold ranges ([0.4, 1], (0, 0.4), and [−1, 0]) indicate that RAP exhibited high positive values, suggesting an impaired compensatory reserve in TBI patients. The median optimal ARIMA model for each resolution and each signal was determined. Autocorrelative function (ACF) and partial ACF (PACF) plots of residuals verified the adequacy of these median optimal ARIMA models. The median of residuals indicates that ARIMA performed better with the higher-resolution data. To identify artifacts, (a) ICP q-order, AMP p-order, and RAP p-order and q-order, (b) residuals of ICP, AMP, and RAP, and (c) cross-correlation between residuals of RAP and AMP proved to be useful at the minute-by-minute resolution, whereas, for the 10-min-by-10-min data resolution, only the q-order of the optimal ARIMA model of ICP and AMP served as a distinguishing factor. Conclusions: RAP signals derived from ICP pressure sensor technology displayed reproducible behaviors across this population of TBI patients. ARIMA modeling at the higher resolution provided comparatively strong accuracy, and key features were identified leveraging these models that could identify RAP artifacts. Further research is needed to enhance artifact management and broaden applicability across varied datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".