The lower limit of reactivity as a potential individualised cerebral perfusion pressure target in traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI high-resolution sub-study analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A previous retrospective single-centre study suggested that the percentage of time spent with cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) below the individual lower limit of reactivity (LLR) is associated with mortality in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. We aim to validate this in a large multicentre cohort. Methods Recordings from 171 TBI patients from the high-resolution cohort of the CENTER-TBI study were processed with ICM+ software. We derived LLR as a time trend of CPP at a level for which the pressure reactivity index (PRx) indicates impaired cerebrovascular reactivity with low CPP. The relationship with mortality was assessed with Mann-U test (first 7-day period), Kruskal–Wallis (daily analysis for 7 days), univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. AUCs (CI 95%) were calculated and compared using DeLong’s test. Results Average LLR over the first 7 days was above 60 mmHg in 48% of patients. %time with CPP < LLR could predict mortality (AUC 0.73, p = < 0.001). This association becomes significant starting from the third day post injury. The relationship was maintained when correcting for IMPACT covariates or for high ICP. Conclusions Using a multicentre cohort, we confirmed that CPP below LLR was associated with mortality during the first seven days post injury.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".