Intracranial Pressure as a Dynamic Predictor of Traumatic Brain Injury Outcomes: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring remains a cornerstone in the management of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), yet its utility as a dynamic predictor of outcomes continues to evolve. We aimed to examine the role of serial ICP measurements as a potential predictor of outcomes after TBI, to combine ICP data with cerebrovascular reactivity metrics, and to highlight emerging trends in ICP modeling such as machine learning-based predictive models. We conducted a rigorous scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines to investigate the utility of ICP monitoring as a dynamic predictor of outcomes following TBI. A systematic search of major databases identified relevant studies published between January 1, 1998, and August 1, 2024. Two reviewers identified relevant articles, and conflicts were adjudicated by a third. Data from the included studies were abstracted and synthesized. Analysis of 29 studies ( N = 5,743 patients) revealed significant associations between specific ICP patterns and clinical outcomes. Key findings included threshold-dependent mortality predictions, the value of early monitoring patterns (i.e., patterns observed within the first 72 h post-injury), and the enhancement of predictive accuracy through integration with cerebrovascular reactivity indices. Many studies now explore ICP as a multidimensional metric rather than a straightforward number, but overarching conclusions are limited by inter-study variability in analysis. The integration of advanced monitoring techniques, the use of features capturing the temporal complexity of ICP, and machine learning approaches show promise in enhancing the predictive value of ICP monitoring as a new form of precision medicine. These findings support strong associations between specific ICP dynamic patterns and mortality and functional outcomes. Standardization of protocols and validation in diverse populations remain important challenges to address 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 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 | 0.017 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".