Systematic search and review procedures: results of the who collaborating centre task force on mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WHO Collaborating Centre for Neurotrauma Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury performed a comprehensive search and critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2002 to assemble the best evidence on the epidemiology, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of mild traumatic brain injury. Our primary sources of literature were Medline, Cinahl, PsycINFO and Embase. Citations were screened for relevance to mild traumatic brain injury, using a priori criteria, and relevant studies were critically reviewed for scientific merit. We identified 38,806 citations, of which 671 studies were judged relevant to the mandate of the task force. These, plus 70 studies found by hand-searching reference lists and 2 original research reports performed as part of the task force mandate were subjected to critical reviews. After review, 313 (42%) were accepted on scientific merit and comprise our best-evidence synthesis. Ninety percent of the literature on mild traumatic brain injury was found in Medline and another 5% in PsycINFO.
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 | 0.078 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.060 | 0.050 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.007 |
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".