MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2755847574 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017165

The course and prognostic factors of cognitive status after central nervous system trauma: a systematic review protocol

2017· review· en· W2755847574 on OpenAlexafffund
Tatyana Mollayeva, Nicole Pacheco, Andrea D’Souza, Angela Colantonio

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchToronto Rehabilitation InstituteInstitute of Gender and HealthUniversity of GlasgowAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFOContext (archaeology)CognitionSystematic reviewMEDLINEPopulationClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is among the most disabling injuries, resulting in a range of cognitive impairments. Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) often occurs in conjunction with TBI; the two are best considered together in the context of trauma to the central nervous system (CNS). Despite strong indications of cognitive dysfunction in CNS trauma, little is known about its natural history or relationship with other factors. The current protocol outlines a strategy for a systematic review of the current evidence examining CNS trauma as a prognostic factor of cognitive decline in the adult population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will be conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All peer-reviewed English language publications with a longitudinal design that focus on cognition in adults (ages 18 and older) with either TBI or SCI, or both from inception to December 2016 found through Medline, Central, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, supplemental PubMed and bibliographies of identified articles will be considered eligible. Quality will be evaluated using published guidelines. Results will be grouped by: (1) prognostic factors of cognitive deficits; and (2) development of, or time until development of, cognitive deficit in patients with CNS trauma. Close attention will be paid to the evaluative properties of the measurements used to assess cognition. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The authors will publish findings from this review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal(s) and present the results at national and international conferences. This work will advance scientific certainty regarding natural history and prognostic factors of cognitive status in males and females with CNS trauma, informing clinicians, policymakers and future researchers on the topic. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017055309.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.015
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.008

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→