Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30042843›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2017

Measuring states of pathological (un)consciousness: research dimensions, clinical applications, and ethics.

Athena Demertzi, Jacobo Diego Sitt, Simone Sarasso, Wim Pinxten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Unlocking Hidden Awareness: Repurposing fMRI to Detect Levels of Consciousness.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Functional network antagonism and consciousness.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Disorders of Consciousness in China.Neuroscience bulletin · 2018
    Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Athena DemertziBrain and Spine Institute- Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière (ICM), Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47, bd de l'Hôpital - 75013 Paris, France.
Jacobo Diego SittBrain and Spine Institute- Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière (ICM), Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47, bd de l'Hôpital - 75013 Paris, France.
Simone SarassoDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences "L. Sacco", University of Milan, Via G.B. Grassi, 74. 20157, Milano, Italy.
Wim PinxtenFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Consciousness is a multidimensional construct with no widely accepted definition. Especially in pathological conditions, it is less clear what exactly is meant by (un)consciousness, how it can be reliably observed or measured. Here, we aim at (i) bringing together state of the art approaches to classification of single patients suffering from disorders of consciousness by means of motor-independent assessment of consciousness states with electrophysiology and functional neuroimaging, (ii) showing how each proposed metric translates into clinical practice and (iii) raising a discussion on the ethical aspects of consciousness measurements. We realize that when dealing with patients some issues commonly pertain to each methodology discussed here, such as the overall clinical condition, clinical heterogeneity, and diagnostic uncertainty. When predicting patients' diagnosis, though, each method adopts a different approach to determine (a) a "gold standard" of the benchmark population upon which the metric is computed and (b) the generalization and replicability in the attempt to avoid overfitting. From an applied ethics perspective, the focus is, hence, on knowing what one is measuring and on the validity of measurements. We conclude that, when searching for consciousness in pathological conditions, confident diagnosis can be based on the use of probabilistic predictions as well as on accumulative evidence stemming from multiple non-overlapping assessments with different modalities. A framework which will regulate the application order of these techniques (balancing their availability, sensitivity, and specificity, based on underlying clinical assumptions about a patient's conscious state), is expected to ameliorate clinical management and further inform on the critical patterns of (un)consciousness.

Indexed as

classificationdisorders of consciousnesselectrophysiologyfunctional neuroimagingneuroethicsTMS

Identifiers

PMID30042843
PMCPMC6007135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.