MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784301735 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1424957

The association between adverse childhood experiences and adult traumatic brain injury/concussion: a scoping review

2018· review· en· W2784301735 on OpenAlexafffund
Zechen Ma, Mark Bayley, Laure Perrier, Priya Dhir, Lana Dépatie, Paul Comper, Lesley Ruttan, Christine Lay, Sarah Munce

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
KeywordsConcussionAdverse Childhood ExperiencesTraumatic brain injuryMedicineAssociation (psychology)Adverse effectInjury preventionRehabilitationOccupational safety and healthPsychologyPoison controlPsychiatryPhysical therapyClinical psychologyMedical emergencyMental healthInternal medicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences are significant risk factors for physical and mental illnesses in adulthood. Traumatic brain injury/concussion is a challenging condition where pre-injury factors may affect recovery. The association between childhood adversity and traumatic brain injury/concussion has not been previously reviewed. The research question addressed is: What is known from the existing literature about the association between adverse childhood experiences and traumatic brain injury/concussion in adults? METHODS: All original studies of any type published in English since 2007 on adverse childhood experiences and traumatic brain injury/concussion outcomes were included. The literature search was conducted in multiple electronic databases. Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al.'s scoping review frameworks were used. Two reviewers independently completed screening and data abstraction. RESULTS: The review yielded six observational studies. Included studies were limited to incarcerated or homeless samples, and individuals at high-risk of or with mental illnesses. Across studies, methods for childhood adversity and traumatic brain injury/concussion assessment were heterogeneous. DISCUSSION: A positive association between adverse childhood experiences and traumatic brain injury occurrence was identified. The review highlights the importance of screening and treatment of adverse childhood experiences. Future research should extend to the general population and implications on injury recovery. Implications for rehabilitation Exposure to adverse childhood experiences is associated with increased risk of traumatic brain injury. Specific types of adverse childhood experiences associated with risk of traumatic brain injury include childhood physical abuse, psychological abuse, household member incarceration, and household member drug abuse. Clinicians and researchers should inquire about adverse childhood experiences in all people with traumatic brain injury as pre-injury health conditions can affect recovery.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0180.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.356 · 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
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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207