ReviewNeuroscience of consciousness2016
Consilience, clinical validation, and global disorders of consciousness.
Review in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Integration of Trauma, Resilience, and Equity Theory and Practice: A Narrative Review and Call for Consilience.The Permanente journal · 2024Review
- Modelling developments in consciousness within a multidimensional framework.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2024Article
- Consciousness in the cradle: on the emergence of infant experience.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2023Review
- Functional geometry of the cortex encodes dimensions of consciousness.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Indicators and criteria of consciousness: ethical implications for the care of behaviourally unresponsive patients.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Pain Perception in Disorder of Consciousness: A Scoping Review on Current Knowledge, Clinical Applications, and Future Perspective.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Consciousness as a multidimensional phenomenon: implications for the assessment of disorders of consciousness.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2021Review
- Habituation of auditory startle reflex is a new sign of minimally conscious state.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2020Article
- Brain imaging reveals covert consciousness during behavioral unresponsiveness induced by propofol.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Longitudinal Bedside Assessments of Brain Networks in Disorders of Consciousness: Case Reports From the Field.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
- On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of consciousness.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2018Article
- Measuring states of pathological (un)consciousness: research dimensions, clinical applications, and ethics.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Behavioral diagnosis of global disorders of consciousness is difficult and errors in diagnosis occur often. Recent advances in neuroimaging may resolve this problem. However, clinical translation of neuroimaging requires clinical validation. Applying the orthodox approach of clinical validation to neuroimaging raises two critical questions: (i) What exactly is being validated? and (ii) what counts as a gold standard? I argue that confusion over these questions leads to systematic errors in the empirical literature. I propose an alternative approach to clinical validation motivated by reasoning by consilience. Consilience is a mode of reasoning that assigns a degree of plausibility to a hypothesis based on its fit with multiple pieces of evidence from independent sources. I argue that this approach resolves the questions raised by the orthodox approach and may be a useful framework for optimizing future clinical validation studies in the science of consciousness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.