MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030063773 · doi:10.2340/16501977-1261

Missed diagnosis of traumatic brain injury in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury

2014· article· en· W2030063773 on OpenAlexafffund
Bhanu Sharma, Cheryl L. Bradbury, David J. Mikulis, Robin Green

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rehabilitation Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersCanada Research ChairsOntario Neurotrauma Foundation
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryMedicineGlasgow Coma ScaleMedical diagnosisSpinal cord injuryMagnetic resonance imagingTraumatic injuryRehabilitationPhysical therapySpinal cordSurgeryRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of missed acute care traumatic brain injury diagnoses in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury, and to examine risk factors for missed traumatic brain injury diagnosis. DESIGN: Prospective magnetic resonance imaging and neuro-psychological assessment plus retrospective medical record review, including computed tomography. SUBJECTS: Ninety-two adults with traumatic spinal cord injury recruited from a large, tertiary spinal cord injury program, initially referred from urban teaching hospitals with neurotrauma facilities. METHODS: Diagnosis of traumatic brain injury made with clinical neurological indices (i.e., Glasgow Coma Scale, post-traumatic amnesia, and loss of consciousness), neuroimaging (computed tomography and structural magnetic resonance imaging), and neuropsychological tests of attention and speed of processing, memory, and executive function; all measures were validated on a case-by-case basis to rule out confounds. Missed traumatic brain injury diagnoses were made via acute care medical record review and were corroborated by patient/family report where possible. RESULTS: The frequency of missed traumatic brain injury diagnoses in our sample was 58.5%. Missed traumatic brain injury diagnoses were more frequent in injuries sustained outside of a motor vehicle collision (MVC), with 75.0% of acute care traumatic brain injury diagnoses missed in non-MVC patients vs. 42.9% missed in MVC patients. Among patients with non-MVC injuries, a comparable percentage of missed traumatic brain injury diagnoses were observed in patients with cervical (79%) and sub-cervical injuries (80%). CONCLUSION: In more than half of the traumatic spinal cord injury patients referred for in-patient rehabilitation, acute care diagnoses of traumatic brain injury were missed. A risk factor for missed diagnosis was an injury caused by a mechanism other than an MVC (e.g., falls, assaults), perhaps due to reduced expectations of traumatic brain injury in non-MVC patients. In our research study, we employed multiple assessments to aid diagnosis, which is particularly important for detecting the milder traumatic brain injuries often associated with spinal cord injury; unfortunately, limited resources may preclude a comprehensive diagnostic approach in clinical settings. Our findings point to the need to examine current acute care diagnostic protocols, and to increase vigilance in patients with traumatic injuries sustained outside of an MVC setting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207