A Review of the Effectiveness of Neuroimaging Modalities for the Detection of Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the United States was 3.5 million cases in 2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a contributing factor in 30.5% of injury-related deaths among civilians. Additionally, since 2000, more than 260,000 service members were diagnosed with TBI, with the vast majority classified as mild or concussive (76%). The objective assessment of TBI via imaging is a critical research gap, both in the military and civilian communities. In 2011, the Department of Defense (DoD) prepared a congressional report summarizing the effectiveness of seven neuroimaging modalities (computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], transcranial Doppler [TCD], positron emission tomography, single photon emission computed tomography, electrophysiologic techniques [magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography], and functional near-infrared spectroscopy) to assess the spectrum of TBI from concussion to coma. For this report, neuroimaging experts identified the most relevant peer-reviewed publications and assessed the quality of the literature for each of these imaging technique in the clinical and research settings. Although CT, MRI, and TCD were determined to be the most useful modalities in the clinical setting, no single imaging modality proved sufficient for all patients due to the heterogeneity of TBI. All imaging modalities reviewed demonstrated the potential to emerge as part of future clinical care. This paper describes and updates the results of the DoD report and also expands on the use of angiography in patients with TBI.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".