MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7103878565 · doi:10.48448/nse7-kk37

Early Identification of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia and Cerebral Vasospasm After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Through a Novel Dynamical Systems Approach

2025· other· W7103878565 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUnderline Science Inc. · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial DopplerSubarachnoid hemorrhageIschemiaVasospasmCerebral vasospasmWaveformCerebral blood flowAttractor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background A critical challenge after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is early identification of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) and cerebral vasospasm (VSP). Transcranial doppler ultrasound (TCD) non-invasively records cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) and is used to identify DCI and VSP risk, but current methods extract mean CBFV velocity, ignoring CBFV shape and dynamics. We hypothesize early pathophysiologic changes are encoded in CBFV shape and dynamics but missed by current CBFV measures. By applying the attractor reconstruction method, we aim to transform qualitative features of CBFV waveforms into quantitative values that better predict DCI and VSP after aSAH. Methods Simultaneous EKG, arterial blood pressure (ABP), and bilateral CBFV recordings were collected from consecutive aSAH patients in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit. Angiographic VSP and DCI were adjudicated by neurointensivists. Artifact-free CBFV waveform segments were extracted manually. We used Takens’ theorem to generate attractors from the CBFV waveforms by means of a delay embedding. Features such as attractor concentration and width were calculated. Each patient’s latest recording prior to DCI/VSP or negative CT angiogram was included. Attractor features in patients with and without DCI/VSP were compared using two- tailed t-tests. To confirm the validity of our findings, we simulated CBFV waveforms and correlated attractor features with CBFV features. Results Fifty-three patients with aSAH from 2016-2019 were followed. Of these, 29 (54.7%) developed VSP, and 20 (37.7%) developed DCI. CBFV, but not ABP, attractor concentration was higher prior to DCI (DCI mean = 0.26±0.04, no DCI mean = 0.23±0.03, p=0.04) and VSP (VSP mean = 0.26±0.02, no VSP mean = 0.22±0.02, p≤0.01). Increasing upstroke convexity and heterogeneity of simulated CBFV recordings increased attractor concentration. CBFV, but not ABP, attractor width was increased before VSP (VSP mean = 66.93±15.65, no VSP mean = 49.37±14.46, p=0.01). Larger simulated CBFV amplitude increased attractor width. In these same recordings, there were no differences in number of patients with mean CBFV greater than 120 cm/s (DCI count = 1, no DCI count = 1, p=1.0, VSP count = 3, no VSP count = 1, p=0.32). Conclusion Attractor analysis of CBFV recordings identifies brain-specific, morphological, and dynamic CBFV changes prior to DCI and VSP where conventional flow velocity analysis does not. These metrics provide non-invasive and quantitative predictors of DCI and VSP, unlocking a new paradigm for TCD clinical utility.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnderline Science Inc.French-language works237,207