MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2583900491

Traumatic Brain Injury Screening Tools in Primary Care

2017· article· en· W2583900491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks -A service of University of Vermont Libraries (University of Vermont) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryPrimary careMedicineMedical emergencyPsychiatryFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injuries are a significant health concern, being responsible for over 52,000 deaths each year. Unfortunately, many traumatic brain injuries often go misdiagnosed or undiagnosed. Primary care providers are the principal and first source of medical contact for individuals, meaning that they are vital in the diagnosis of previous traumatic brain injuries in order to prevent future sequelae. There are currently several well-validated screening tools currently available for use by primary care providers. This study uses a self-reported survey to determine which of these tools are used by primary care nurse practitioners from a northern New England state and to compare the results to the suggestions made in current literature. The tools chosen by different primary care providers vary greatly, as do the indications used for initiation of traumatic brain injury screening. There were a total of 17 participants in the study, all of whom were at least masters level prepared nurse practitioners. The average number of years spent in practice was 11.7, with an average of 10.4 of those years in primary care. The most commonly used screening tool was the Mini Mental Status Exam, followed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the CDC Acute Concussion Evaluation tool. Screening tools developed specifically for TBI assessment, such as the Ohio State University TBI ID Method and the Brief Traumatic Brain Injury Questionnaire were found to be seldom used (17% of total participants). Many primary care providers do not feel confident in their ability to diagnose such injuries, often due to lack of expertise in the area, which was reflected in the self-reported survey. As new screening tools become available, it is imperative that they are tested for validity, and then utilized in practice. Due to the complexity of diagnosing traumatic brain injuries, the most simple and accurate screening tools are often the ones preferred by providers. Moving forward, simple new screening tools need to be evaluated for effectiveness and ease of use. These tools should then be introduced to primary care practitioners, with suggestions as to how to best supplement them with other parts of an exam. Since TBIs are becoming an increasingly more common diagnosis in primary care, future advanced nursing evidence-based practice should focus on the recommended screening tools so as to better identify and guide treatment. Future research is needed to evaluate the extent to which part of an exam yield the most pertinent and accurate findings, as well as to compare the effectiveness of screening models utilized in civilian and military settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks -A service of University of Vermont Libraries (University of Vermont)Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207