The role of apolipoprotein E episilon (<b>ɛ</b>)-4 allele on outcome following traumatic brain injury: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) has emerged as a candidate for prognosticating traumatic brain injury (TBI) recovery, with APOEε4 identified as a susceptibility marker for poor outcome, despite large discrepancy in its reported influence post-TBI. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, including all primary articles investigating the role of APOEε4 on TBI outcome. A total of 65 studies were included, including 24 predominantly investigating mild (mTBI), seven moderate (modTBI) and 33 severe (sTBI); severity was not reported in one study. RESULTS: In mTBI studies, the association between APOEε4 and post-TBI outcome was concluded as non-contributory in 14 studies (58.3%), hazardous in nine (37.5%) and protective in one (4.2%). In sTBI studies, the role of APOEε4 was hazardous in 21 (63.6%), non-contributory in nine (27.3%) and protective in three (9.1%). Of the seven studies investigating dementia outcomes, four observed a hazardous association with APOEε4, while three reported no association. Six studies examined Alzheimer's dementia pathology, of which three reported a hazardous influence of APOEε4. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of APOEε4 on neuropsychological testing, functional outcome and in paediatric populations was incongruous. This review supports the majority of research indicating APOEε4 adversely influences recovery following TBI, particularly with respect to dementia-related outcomes and outcomes following sTBI.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".