Controlled Blast Exposure During Forced Explosive Entry Training and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the pathophysiology and short- and long-term neurologic consequences of primary blast injury in humans. The purpose of this investigation was to test the feasibility of implementing a research protocol in the context of a forced explosive entry training course. METHODS: Instructors (n = 4) and students (n = 10) completing the Police Explosives Technicians-Forced Entry Instructors course were recruited to participate in the study. Participants underwent a physical examination, tests of postural stability and vestibular ataxia, and a neurocognitive battery 1 day before and 10 days following practical forced explosive entry exercises. RESULTS: The instructors reported significantly more blast exposures in their careers than the students (p < 0.05). Seventy-five percent of the instructors and 50% of the students reported a history of trauma to the head. A minority of the participants had deficits on cranial nerve, vestibular ataxia, and neurocognitive tests which did not change significantly postexposure. All the instructors and most of the students (90%) demonstrated postural stability deficits at baseline which did not change significantly postexposure. CONCLUSIONS: Studying the effects of blast exposure on the human brain in a controlled experimental setting is not possible. Forced explosive entry training courses afford an opportunity to begin examining this issue in real time in a controlled setting. This study underscores the importance of baseline testing of troops, of the consideration of subclinical implications of blast exposure, and of continued studies of the effects of blast exposures, including repeated exposures on the human brain.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".