MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Traumatic Brain Injury as a Risk Factor for Alzheimer's Disease: Is Inflammatory Signaling a Key Player?

2016· review· en· W2286414115 on OpenAlexaff
Jelena Djordjevic, Mohammad Golam Sabbir, Benedict C. Albensi

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Alzheimer Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryDiseaseMedicineDementiaNeurodegenerationRisk factorChronic traumatic encephalopathyInflammationNeuroscienceBioinformaticsPsychiatryPoison controlPsychologyIntensive care medicineInjury preventionConcussionPathologyInternal medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has become a significant medical and social concern within the last 30 years. TBI has acute devastating effects, and in many cases, seems to initiate long-term neurodegeneration. With advances in medical technology, many people are now surviving severe brain injuries and their long term consequences. Post trauma effects include communication problems, sensory deficits, emotional and behavioral problems, physical complications and pain, increased suicide risk, dementia, and an increased risk for chronic CNS diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this review, we provide an introduction to TBI and hypothesize how it may lead to neurodegenerative disease in general and AD in particular. In addition, we discuss the evidence that supports the hypothesis that TBI may lead to AD. In particular, we focus on inflammatory responses as key processes in TBI-induced secondary injury, with emphasis on nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) signaling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.319
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Alzheimer ResearchSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207