MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245579290 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-28495/v1

Brain Connectivity and Behaviour in Post-Concussion Syndrome: A Scoping Review Protocol

2020· review· en· W4245579290 on OpenAlexafffund
Melisa Gumus, Alexandra Santos, Maria Carmela Tartaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square (Research Square) · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDiffusion MRIConcussionNeuroimagingWhite matterProtocol (science)Functional connectivityPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTraumatic brain injuryCognitionMedicinePost-concussion syndromeNeuroscienceMagnetic resonance imagingPsychiatryPoison controlPathologyRadiologyInjury preventionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background About 10-15% of patients experience persistent symptoms 3-months post-concussion, referred to as Post-Concussion Syndrome (PCS). There are no biomarkers for detecting this condition, but advanced neuroimaging tools such as Diffusion Tensor/Weighted Imaging (DTI/DWI) or functional MRI (fMRI) can detect subtle changes in the integrity of white matter tracts or brain activity, respectively. Methods This study protocol presents search strategies for a scoping review that provides an overview of the studies that assessed both alterations of structural and/or functional connectivity and cognitive/neuropsychiatric outcomes in PCS. Discussion A better understanding of the brain-behaviour relationships in PCS can lead to improved diagnosis of this condition. Scoping Review Protocol Registration: osf.io/sqt7d

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.315 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square (Research Square)Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207