MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207021583 · doi:10.3233/nre-210243

Autonomic dysfunction in adults following mild traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

2022· article· en· W4207021583 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurorehabilitation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryAutonomic nervous systemAutonomic functionBrain function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests autonomic nervous system (ANS) dysfunction may occur following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Measures of heart rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure and baroreceptor sensitivity can be used to evaluate ANS dysfunction following mTBI. OBJECTIVE: Summarize the evidence for ANS dysfunction in adults following mTBI. METHODS: A search of Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus databases was conducted. Search topics included: mTBI and ANS. Identified abstracts were independently reviewed by 2 reviewers followed by full text screening. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified SIGN checklist. A structured synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies (combined 1,467 participants diagnosed with mTBI) evaluating ANS function were included. ANS function was evaluated under various conditions including: rest, during exertion, cold pressor test, Valsalva maneuver, using face cooling and eyeball pressure paradigms. Short-term or ultra-short-term recordings were most common. The majority of studies (28/39) were rated as "unacceptable" for quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Altered parameters of ANS function have been reported in multiple conditions following mTBI, both acutely and in the post-acute/chronic stages of recovery. However, due to methodological limitations, conclusions regarding the severity and timing of ANS dysfunction following mTBI cannot be drawn.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations36
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurorehabilitationSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207