Diffuse axonal injury in children: Clinical correlation with hemorrhagic lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An inception cohort of 40 children and adolescents with traumatic brain injury and suspected diffuse axonal injury were studied using a new high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility-weighted technique that is very sensitive for hemorrhage. A blinded comparison was performed between the extent of parenchymal hemorrhage and initial clinical variables as well as outcomes measured at 6 to 12 months after injury. Children with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (< or =8, n = 30) or prolonged coma (>4 days, n = 20) had a greater average number (p = 0.007) and volume (p = 0.008) of hemorrhagic lesions. Children with normal outcomes or mild disability (n = 30) at 6 to 12 months had, on average, fewer hemorrhagic lesions (p = 0.003) and lower volume (p = 0.003) of lesions than those who were moderately or severely disabled or in a vegetative state. Significant differences also were observed when comparing regional injury to clinical variables. Because susceptibility-weighted imaging is much more sensitive than conventional T2*-weighted gradient-echo sequences in detecting hemorrhagic diffuse axonal injury, more accurate and objective assessment of injury can be obtained early after insult, and may provide better prognostic information regarding duration of coma as well as long-term outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".