Diffusion Tensor Imaging Findings in Post-Concussion Syndrome Patients after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for the use of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) parameters in the human brain as a diagnostic tool for and predictor of post-concussion syndrome (PCS) after a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: All relevant studies in AMED, Embase, MEDLINE, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science through 20 May, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that analyze traditional DTI measures [fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), radial diffusivity (RD), and axial diffusivity (AD)] and the severity of PCS symptoms or the development of PCS in humans after an mTBI. DATA EXTRACTION: Population studied, patient source, mTBI diagnosis method, PCS diagnosis method, DTI values measured, significant findings, and correlation between DTI findings and PCS. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies investigated correlations between DTI values and PCS symptom severity or between DTI values and the development of PCS in mTBI patients. Decreased FA and increased MD and RD were associated with the development and severity of PCS. AD was not found to change significantly. Brain regions found to have significant changes in DTI parameters varied from study to study, although the corpus callosum was most frequently cited as having abnormal DTI parameters in PCS patients. CONCLUSION: DTI abnormalities correlate with PCS incidence and symptom severity, as well as indicate an increased risk of developing PCS after mTBI. Abnormal DTI findings should prompt investigation of the syndrome to ensure optimal symptom management at the earliest stages. Currently, there is no consensus in the literature about the use of one DTI parameter in a specific region of the brain as a biomarker for PCS because no definite trends for DTI parameters in PCS subjects have been identified. Further research is required to establish a standard biomarker for PCS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".