Progressive Neurodegeneration Across Chronic Stages of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the trajectory of structural gray matter changes across 2 chronic periods of recovery in individuals who have sustained severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), adding to the growing literature indicating that neurodegenerative processes occur in the months to years postinjury. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who experienced posttraumatic amnesia of 1 hour or more, and/or scored 12 or less on the Glasgow Coma Scale at the emergency department or the scene of the accident, and/or had positive brain imaging findings were recruited while receiving inpatient care, resulting in 51 patients with severe TBI. METHODS: Secondary analyses of gray matter changes across approximately 5 months, 1 year, and 2.5 years postinjury were undertaken, using an automated segmentation protocol with improved accuracy in populations with morphological anomalies. We compared patients and matched controls on regions implicated in poorer long-term clinical outcome (accumbens, amygdala, brainstem, hippocampus, thalamus). To model brain-wide patterns of change, we then conducted an exploratory principal component analysis (PCA) on the linear slopes of all regional volumes across the 3 time points. Finally, we assessed nonlinear trends across earlier (5 months-1 year) versus later (1-2.5 years) time-windows with PCA to compare degeneration rates across time. Chronic degeneration was predicted cortically and subcortically brain-wide, and within specific regions of interest. RESULTS: (1) From 5 months to 1 year, patients showed significant degeneration in the accumbens, and marginal degeneration in the amygdala, brainstem, thalamus, and the left hippocampus when examined unilaterally, compared with controls. (2) PCA components representing subcortical and temporal regions, and regions from the basal ganglia, significantly differed from controls in the first time-window. (3) Progression occurred at the same rate across both time-windows, suggesting neither escalation nor attenuation of degeneration across time. CONCLUSION: Localized yet progressive decline emphasizes the necessity of developing interventions to offset degeneration and improve long-term functioning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".