MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3024212183 · doi:10.1017/cem.2020.223

P015: Efficacy of the Brain Injury Guidelines for complicated mild traumatic brain injuries

2020· article· en· W3024212183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean-Nicolas Tourigny, Christian Malo, Valérie Boucher, Pierre-Gilles Blanchard, J. Chauny, Gregory Clark, Véronique Paquet, Émile Fortier, Marcel Émond

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTraumatic brain injuryEmergency departmentRadiological weaponTriageEmergency medicineConcussionGlasgow Coma ScaleHead injuryPoison controlInjury preventionSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) stratifies complicated mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) patients into 3 groups to guide hospitalization, neurosurgical consultation and repeat head-CT. BIG-1 patients could be managed safely without neurosurgical consultation or transfer. Systematic transfer to neurotrauma centers provide few benefits to this subgroup leading to overtriage. Similarly, unnecessary clinical and radiological follow-ups utilize significant health-care resources. Objective: to validate the safety and efficacy of the BIG for complicated mTBIs. Methods: We performed a multicenter historical cohort study in 3 level-1 trauma centers in Quebec. Patients ≥16 years old assessed in the Emergency Department (ED) with complicated mTBI between 2014 and 2017 were included. Patients with penetrating trauma, cerebral aneurysm or tumor were excluded. Clinical, demographic and radiological data, BIG variables, TBI-related death and neurosurgical intervention were collected using a standardized form. A second reviewer assessed all ambiguous files. Descriptive statistics, over- and under-triage were calculated. Results: A total of 342 patients’ records were assessed. Mean age was 63 ± 20,7 and 236 (69 %) were male. Thirty-five patients were classified under BIG-1 (10.2%), 110 under BIG-2 (32.2%) and 197 under BIG-3 (57.6%). Twenty-six patients (7%) required neurosurgical intervention, all were BIG-3. 90% of TBI-related deaths occurred in BIG-3 and none were classified BIG-1. Among the 192 transfers (51%), 14 were classified under BIG-1 (7.3%) and should not have been transferred according to the guidelines and 50 under BIG-2 (26%). In addition, 40% of BIG-1 received a repeat head computed tomography, although not indicated. Similarly, 7 % of all patients had a neurosurgical consult even if not required. Projected implementation of BIG would lead to 47% of overtriage and 0.3% of undertriage. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the Brain Injury Guidelines could safely identify patients with negative outcomes and could lead to a safe and effective management of complicated mTBI. Applying these guidelines to our cohort could have resulted in significantly fewer repeat head CTs, neurosurgical consults and transfers to level 1 neurotrauma centers.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine→Same topicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies→French-language works237,207→