An Overview of Published Research about the Acute Care and Rehabilitation of Traumatic Brain Injured and Spinal Cord Injured Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of the breadth, nature, and volume of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) research can aid in research planning. This study aimed to provide an overview of existing TBI and SCI research to inform identification of knowledge translation (KT), systematic review (SR), and primary research opportunities. Topics and relevant articles from three large neurotrauma evidence resources were synthesized: the Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative (129 topics and 1644 articles), the Acquired Brain Injury Evidence-Based Review (ERABI; 152 topics and 732 articles), and the Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Evidence (SCIRE) Project (297 topics and 1650 articles). A de-duplicated dataset of SRs, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and other studies identified by these projects was created. In all, 145 topics were identified (66 TBI and 79 SCI), yielding 3466 research articles (1256 TBI and 2210 SCI). Topics with KT potential included cognitive therapies for TBI and prevention/management of urinary tract problems post-SCI, which accounted for 17% and 18%, respectively, of the TBI and SCI yield. Topics that may require SR included management of raised intracranial pressure in TBI, and ventilation and intermittent positive pressure interventions following SCI. Topics for which primary research may be needed included pharmacological therapies for neurological recovery post-TBI, and management of sleep-disordered breathing post-SCI. There was a larger volume of non-intervention (epidemiological) studies in SCI than in TBI. This comprehensive overview of TBI and SCI research can aid funding agencies, researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders in prioritizing and planning TBI and SCI research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".