MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785140707 · doi:10.1139/bcb-2016-0160

Traumatic brain injury: classification, models, and markers

2018· review· en· W2785140707 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dema Najem, Kerry Rennie, Maria Ribecco‐Lutkiewicz, Dao Ly, Julie Haukenfrers, Qing Liu, Munyao Nzau, Douglas D. Fraser, Mahmud Bani‐Yaghoub

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioChildren’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of OttawaWestern UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryMedicineIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Due to its high incidence rate and often long-term sequelae, TBI contributes significantly to increasing costs of health care expenditures annually. Unfortunately, advances in the field have been stifled by patient and injury heterogeneity that pose a major challenge in TBI prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. In this review, we briefly discuss the causes of TBI, followed by its prevalence, classification, and pathophysiology. The current imaging detection methods and animal models used to study brain injury are examined. We discuss the potential use of molecular markers in detecting and monitoring the progression of TBI, with particular emphasis on microRNAs as a novel class of molecular modulators of injury and its repair in the neural tissue.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations212
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207