Baseline vs. cross-sectional MRI of concussion: distinct brain patterns in white matter and cerebral blood flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroimaging has been used to describe the pathophysiology of sport-related concussion during early injury, with effects that may persist beyond medical clearance to return-to-play (RTP). However, studies are typically cross-sectional, comparing groups of concussed and uninjured athletes. It is important to determine whether these findings are consistent with longitudinal change at the individual level, relative to their own pre-injury baseline. A cohort of N = 123 university-level athletes were scanned with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Of this group, N = 12 acquired a concussion and were re-scanned at early symptomatic injury and at RTP. A sub-group of N = 44 uninjured athletes were also re-imaged, providing a normative reference group. Among concussed athletes, abnormalities were identified for white matter fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity, along with grey matter cerebral blood flow, using both cross-sectional (CS) and longitudinal (LNG) approaches. The spatial patterns of abnormality for CS and LNG were distinct, with median fractional overlap below 0.10 and significant differences in the percentage of abnormal voxels. However, the analysis methods did not differ in the amount of change from symptomatic injury to RTP and in the direction of observed abnormalities. These results highlight the impact of using pre-injury baseline data when evaluating concussion-related brain abnormalities at the individual level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".