Recognizing and Responding to Overdose-Induced Hypoxic Brain Injury: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this proposed knowledge synthesis review is to identify, organize and report on evidence-based strategies for recognizing and responding to non-fatal opioid overdose-induced hypoxic brain injury by conducting a scoping review of the extant literature. In cases of non-fatal opioid poisoning, respiratory depression reduces cerebral blood flow and causes irreversible brain damage, known as overdose-induced hypoxic brain injury. While the exact prevalence is unknown, it is estimated that this outcome of overdose is pervasive, leaving thousands with untreated mental and physical disabilities. There is a critical need for research that identifies actionable strategies for addressing overdose-induced hypoxic brain injury. Our population of interest is people with hypoxic and/or anoxic brain damage caused by one or more non-fatal opioid-involved overdose events. We are interested in any and all types of interventions, strategies, tools or methods focusing on the recognition (e.g., screening diagnosis) and/or response (e.g., acute treatment, long-term supports) to hypoxic/anoxic brain injuries caused by non-fatal opioid overdose. Any outcomes related to recognition and response to hypoxic/anoxic brain injuries caused by non-fatal opioid overdose events are considered relevant. The JBI Scoping Review Methodology will be used and all outcomes will be reported according to PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The following databases will be searched for potentially relevant articles: MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, PDTG (Web of Science), and OpenAlex. Articles will be evaluated against inclusion criteria, and data will be extracted from relevant reports. The results of the scoping review will include evidence-based strategies for recognizing (e.g., diagnostic measures) and responding (e.g., rehabilitation modalities) to overdose-induced hypoxic brain injury. Gaps in the knowledge base will also be identified, providing a framework for future research and public policy. As the overdose-induced brain injury crisis remains unabated, the critical need for knowledge on how to best identify and treat this under-recognized type of brain injury remains unmet. The findings of this scoping review will provide policy makers and healthcare providers with evidence-based strategies to manage the rising number of overdose-induced brain injuries. ---- Cole J. Kennedy (1,2,3), Sydney Palmer (1), Zahra Premji (4), & Mauricio A. Garcia-Barrera (1,2) 1. Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 2. Institute on Aging & Lifelong Health, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 3. Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 4. Libraries, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
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 | 0.116 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.016 |
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".