MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409710801 · doi:10.1177/02676591251329555

Can we reduce the risk of neurological injury in critically ill children on initiation of ECLS? A narrative review of potential modifiable factors

2025· review· en· W4409710801 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Joram, Ravi R. Thiagarajan, Melania M. Bembea, Sung‐Min Cho, Anne-Marie Guerguerian, Roberto Lorusso, Angelo Polito, Lakshmi Raman, Neel Shah, Akram Zaaqoq, Aparna Hoskote, Matteo Di Nardo

Bibliographic record

VenuePerfusion · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationNarrative reviewIntensive care medicineLife supportDiseaseExtracorporealCritically illTraumatic brain injuryAnesthesiaSurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurological morbidity and mortality remain high in children requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Although the severity of illness at the time of ECMO initiation and the nature of the underlying disease are strongly linked to the development of acute brain injury, several important factors are associated with neurological complications during ECMO support. Many of these factors, particularly those encountered during the early phase of ECMO initiation (first 24 hours), may be modifiable and represent potential targets for interventional studies aiming for improvement of neurological outcomes in pediatric ECMO patients. In this review from the European Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (EuroELSO) Working Group on Neurologic Monitoring and Outcome, we aim to summarize current knowledge on modifiable factors associated with brain injury during ECMO and their potential impact on outcome.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerfusionSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207