ArticleScientific reports2022
Feasibility of the optimal cerebral perfusion pressure value identification without a delay that is too long.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cerebral Perfusion Pressure in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors and Non-Survivors: A Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Continuous personalized cerebrovascular reactivity-based physiologic metrics in neurocritical care: a narrative review of the current landscape, limitations, and future directions.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Impaired cerebral autoregulation detected in early prevasospasm period is associated with unfavorable outcome after spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage: an observational prospective pilot study.The ultrasound journal · 2024Article
- Advanced neuromonitoring powered by ICM+ and its place in the Brand New AI World, reflections at the 20th anniversary boundary.Brain & spine · 2024Article
- Intraoperative monitoring of cerebrovascular autoregulation in infants and toddlers receiving major elective surgery to determine the individually optimal blood pressure - a pilot study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimal cerebral perfusion pressure (CPPopt)-targeted treatment of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients requires 2-8 h multi-modal monitoring data accumulation to identify CPPopt value for individual patient. Minimizing the time required for monitoring data accumulation is needed to improve the efficacy of CPPopt-targeted therapy. A retrospective analysis of multimodal physiological monitoring data from 87 severe TBI patients was performed by separately representing cerebrovascular autoregulation (CA) indices in relation to CPP, arterial blood pressure (ABP), and intracranial pressure (ICP) to improve the existing CPPopt identification algorithms. Machine learning (ML)-based algorithms were developed for automatic identification of informative data segments that were used for reliable CPPopt, ABPopt, ICPopt and the lower/upper limits of CA (LLCA/ULCA) identification. The reference datasets of the informative data segments and, artifact-distorted segments, and the datasets of different clinical situations were used for training the ML-based algorithms, allowing us to choose the appropriate individualized CPP-, ABP- or ICP-guided management for 79% of the full monitoring time for the studied population. The developed ML-based algorithms allow us to recognize informative physiological ABP/ICP variations within 24 min intervals with an accuracy up to 79% (compared to the initial accuracy of 74%) and use these segments for timely optimal value identification or CA limits determination in CPP, ABP or ICP data. Prospective clinical studies are needed to prove the efficiency of the developed algorithms.
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.