Meta-Analysis of Functional Outcomes in 5508 Patients Sustaining a Gunshot Wound to the Head
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is currently no consensus regarding prognosis and management for gunshot wounds to the head (GSWH). To the author'' knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to study functional outcomes in GSWH. METHODS: Five online databases and the reference lists of relevant articles were queried for cohort studies of GSWH reporting factors associated with functional outcome. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) outcomes were divided into unfavorable (GOS 1-3) and favorable (GOS 4-5). Pooled estimates of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed with I-square and meta-regression. Funnel-plots were utilized to assess publication bias. RESULTS: We identified 35 retrospective cohort studies encompassing 5508 GSWH patients. Out of the factors assessed, the ones significantly associated with unfavorable functional outcome were: postresuscitation GCS 3 to 8 (Odds Ratio 33.2, 95% Confidence Interval [10.1-108.6]), suicide attempt (3.6 [1.7-7.8]), penetration of the dura (10.3 [1.8-60.5]), bullet trajectory through both hemispheres (8.3 [4.1-17.2]), through the ventricles (8.8 [1.6-48.8]), and through multiple lobes (8.6 [2.2-33.5]). No statistical significance was found for unfavorable functional outcome regarding patient age, sex, pupillary response, and the existence of an exit wound. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis regarding prognostic factors for neurologic outcomes in patients sustaining GSWH. Such factors can inform clinical decision-making and assist in setting patient and physician expectations in the acute setting. Further research is required to properly incorporate this information into management guidelines.
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 | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".