Cerebrovascular reactivity assessed by transcranial Doppler ultrasound in sport-related concussion: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury influences regulation of cerebral blood flow in animal models and in human studies. We reviewed the use of transcranial Doppler ultrasound (US) to monitor cerebrovascular reactivity following sport-related concussion. REVIEW METHOD: A narrative and systematic review of articles published in the English language, from December 1982 to October 2013. DATA SOURCES: Articles were retrieved via numerous databases using relevant key terms. Observational, cohort, correlational, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were included. RESULTS: Three publications met the criteria for inclusion; these provided data from 42 athletes and 33 controls. All three studies reported reductions in cerebrovascular reactivity via transcranial Doppler US. CONCLUSIONS: These initial results support the use of cerebrovascular reactivity as a research tool for identifying altered neurophysiology and monitoring recovery in adult athletes. Larger cross-sectional, prospective and longitudinal studies are required to understand the sensitivity and prognostic value of cerebrovascular reactivity in sport-related concussion.
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 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".