MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, and Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound Following Sport-Related Concussion

2015· book-chapter· en· W407505763 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Gardner, Grant L. Iverson, Paul van Donkelaar, Philip N. Ainslie, Peter Stanwell

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionDiffusion MRITranscranial DopplerMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingMedicineRadiologyUltrasoundFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPoison controlInjury preventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sport-related concussion has been referred to as a functional rather than a structural injury with neurometabolic and microstructural alterations reported in several studies. Accordingly, conventional neuroimaging techniques, such as computed tomography (CT) and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have limited value beyond ruling out structural injury such as a contusion or hemorrhage. This chapter presents a review of three neuroimaging techniques that offer insight into the connectivity and neurometabolic consequences of concussion. A number of studies have now been published using magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)/diffusion-weighted imaging, and transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) with varying findings. The results of these studies will be presented, together with current and possible future application of these techniques within the field of sport-related concussion.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→