(no subject)
Nov. 13th, 2003 08:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oakenguyIf you're like me, you've spent a great deal of time thinking about ways to improve the Glasgow Coma Scale.
Admit it; I mean, we've all done it. We've grown up using a 1 to 10 scale, so something that goes from 3 (no brain activity) to 15 (fully cognitive) just feels wrongedy-wrongedy-wrong. Sure, "logically" the score (eye response + verbal response + motor response) might make sense, but where is the room for logic in neuroscience?!?
Therefore, I'd like to propose The Glasgow-Cambridgeport Unabridged Coma Scale, which shall run from 1 to 15. 3 through 15 shall be scored normally. 2 will indicate patients with no brain inside their skull; a 1 will serve to indicate a patient with no head.
Admit it; I mean, we've all done it. We've grown up using a 1 to 10 scale, so something that goes from 3 (no brain activity) to 15 (fully cognitive) just feels wrongedy-wrongedy-wrong. Sure, "logically" the score (eye response + verbal response + motor response) might make sense, but where is the room for logic in neuroscience?!?
Therefore, I'd like to propose The Glasgow-Cambridgeport Unabridged Coma Scale, which shall run from 1 to 15. 3 through 15 shall be scored normally. 2 will indicate patients with no brain inside their skull; a 1 will serve to indicate a patient with no head.
