ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Time-Stamped Annotations in High-Frequency Physiological Data: Evaluating an Approach for Assessing Annotation Plausibility in the CENTER-TBI Dataset.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveHigh-resolution neuromonitoring data with time-stamped clinical annotations offer valuable insights into treatment responses, though reliability is limited by manual documentation. This study aims to develop and demonstrate a three-step methodological framework to evaluate the plausibility of time-stamped clinical annotations using a high-frequency dataset. The framework integrates visual inspection of reference annotations and automated classification based on predefined physiological criteria.
methodsAnnotated interventions in the High-Resolution Collaborative European Neuro Trauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) dataset were retrospectively analysed. Step 1 included visually inspecting physiotherapy and suctioning annotations to assess the overall plausibility of annotations at the patient level. In Step 2, an intracranial pressure (ICP)-based classification was applied to the period before osmotherapy annotations. Rejected annotations were those without sustained intracranial hypertension (ICP > 20 mm Hg for ≥ 5 min) beforehand. Step 3 classified the accepted annotations as effective (ICP reduction ≥ 10 mm Hg or normalisation) or ineffective on the basis of the post-annotation ICP trend.
resultsAcross 205 patients, 15,455 annotated interventions were identified. Visual inspection (Step 1) classified 90.2% of files as having moderate or high evidence of an annotation-signal relationship and 9.8% as having low evidence. The automated analysis (Step 2) identified 388 osmotherapy annotations in 76 patients; 140 (36.1%) were rejected, and 248 (63.9%) were retained. Step 3 found that, among valid events, 67.7% were effective and 32.3% ineffective. Rejected events were more frequent in low-evidence files (57.3%%) than in high-evidence ones (18.0%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThis study provides the first systematic evaluation of time-stamped annotations in the CENTER-TBI high-resolution dataset. Concordant findings obtained using visual inspection and automated classification supports the credibility of both approaches and illustrates a framework for evaluating physiological plausibility, demonstrated here for osmotherapy but applicable to other annotated interventions. External validation is needed to prove the generalisability of the proposed algorithm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42686990What 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.