MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120842994 · doi:10.1515/revneuro-2020-0037

Depression following traumatic brain injury: a comprehensive overview

2020· review· en· W3120842994 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marc Fakhoury, Zaynab Shakkour, Firas Kobeissy, Nada Lawand

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in the Neurosciences · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryDepression (economics)NeuropsychologyMoodMedicineMood disordersPsychiatryHead injuryNeurologyPsychologyClinical psychologyCognitionAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) represents a major health concern affecting the neuropsychological health; TBI is accompanied by drastic long-term adverse complications that can influence many aspects of the life of affected individuals. A substantial number of studies have shown that mood disorders, particularly depression, are the most frequent complications encountered in individuals with TBI. Post-traumatic depression (P-TD) is present in approximately 30% of individuals with TBI, with the majority of individuals experiencing symptoms of depression during the first year following head injury. To date, the mechanisms of P-TD are far from being fully understood, and effective treatments that completely halt this condition are still lacking. The aim of this review is to outline the current state of knowledge on the prevalence and risk factors of P-TD, to discuss the accompanying brain changes at the anatomical, molecular and functional levels, and to discuss current approaches used for the treatment of P-TD.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.437
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.068 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in the NeurosciencesSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207