The natural history of brain contusion: an analysis of radiological and clinical progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Although brain contusions are a common neurosurgical condition, surprisingly little has been written about their natural history. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that predict radiological and clinically significant progression of this pattern of traumatic brain injury in patients who did not initially require surgery. On the basis of their results and the available literature, the authors suggest a management algorithm. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of clinical and radiological records of consecutive patients with brain contusions who initially underwent conservative treatment. Significant radiological progression was defined as a 30% increase in contusion size on CT scans. Statistical analysis was performed to identify clinical and radiological predictors of CT contusion progression, the significance of progression, and predictors of clinical outcome. RESULTS: Of 98 patients identified with brain contusions who initially received conservative treatment, 44 (45%) had significant progression on CT, and 19 (19%) required surgical intervention. The initial size of the contusion and the presence of subdural hematoma were the only statistically significant predictors of CT progression in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.0212 and 0.05, respectively). Four patients required delayed contusion evacuation (3 had radiological progression on follow-up scans). Good Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores on presentation and younger age were predictors of eventual discharge from the hospital (OR 1.471, CI 1.233-1.755, p < 0.001 and OR 0.949, CI 0.912-0.988, p = 0.011, respectively). No patients with an initial GCS score of 15 or an initial contusion size < 14 ml required delayed evacuation. CONCLUSIONS: Contusion progression is a common phenomenon that is seen more commonly in larger contusions. Patients with large contusions and low initial GCS scores are at risk for delayed deterioration. A proposed management algorithm for patients with contusions initially treated conservatively may help practitioners identify the best course of treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".