MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406898090 · doi:10.7759/cureus.78145

Unlocking Coma Assessments: Exploring Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge and Perception of the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Score in Saudi Arabia

2025· article· en· W4406898090 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Lary, Reema Abualnaja, Osama Khojah, Manar Betar, Abdulrazak Sakhakhni, Badriah Alsabbagh, Danya A Aljafari, Salem K Baeshen, Abdulelah Fattani, Hosam Al-Jehani, Yasmeen S Alsulaiman, Thamer Alaifan, Maan Jamjoom

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlasgow Coma ScaleLevel of consciousnessHealth careNeurointensive careFamily medicineScale (ratio)NeurologyEmergency medicinePsychiatryIntensive care medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Coma scales play a critical role in assessing the consciousness level of comatose patients, guiding clinical decisions, and predicting patient outcomes. Although the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) has been the standard for decades, the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score offers a more comprehensive assessment. In this study, the awareness, knowledge, and utilization of the FOUR scores among healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia were explored. Methods This multisite, cross-sectional study was conducted between January and April 2023 and involved physicians specializing in emergency medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, or intensive care. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire. Results Among 335 participating physicians, only 33% (111) reported having prior knowledge of the FOUR score; 54% (60) of physicians in this group rarely or never used the FOUR score, largely owing to the perception that the GCS suffices (45%, 61), and a lack of awareness among other healthcare professionals (43%, 58). A significant proportion of physicians unfamiliar with the FOUR score have expressed a willingness to adopt alternative scoring systems, and 67% (148) were open to using a system evaluating brainstem reflexes. For respiration and intubation, 65% (143) and 85% (187) of the physicians were open to alternative scoring systems, respectively. There was a significant difference in knowledge between specialties, level of training, and previous neurocritical training (p-values <0.001, 0.032, <0.001, respectively). Conclusion This study revealed a notable gap in knowledge and utilization of the FOUR score in Saudi Arabia, a willingness to explore alternative systems for assessing consciousness, and an interest in comparative studies of various coma scales. Efforts to improve education about the FOUR score among relevant healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia, in addition to exploring alternative systems, is suggested.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→