MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285676932 · doi:10.1101/2022.07.15.22277668

Clinical Utility of SPECT Neuroimaging in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4285676932 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Hanna, Jaclyn Herman, Bartosz Zawada, Christine Andraos, Oscar Karbi, Carina D’Souza, Atiemo Kessie, Getachew Mazengia, Sameer D’Souza

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWilliam Osler Health System
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineNeuroimagingTraumatic brain injuryRandomized controlled trialInclusion and exclusion criteriaMeta-analysisMEDLINEMagnetic resonance imagingSystematic reviewModalitiesClinical trialEmission computed tomographyMedical physicsPositron emission tomographyRadiologyInternal medicinePsychiatryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The most common assessment modalities to determine the level of injury following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) includes computerized tomography (CT) scans and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Evidence is mixed as to whether single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is specific and accurate in identifying TBI. Objectives This study systematically assessed recent evidence of the clinical utility of SPECT in the diagnosis of TBI and examined the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT in TBI and its performance in comparison to other imaging modalities (e.g., CT and MRI). Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were systematically searched for published articles from December 2012 to July 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published in English that used SPECT to evaluate patients with all severity of TBIs were eligible for inclusion. Titles and abstracts were screened, and 111 selected full-text articles were independently screened based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria (guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PRISMA) and assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Fourteen eligible studies, all observational, reporting location of lesions on brain SPECT were included, reporting data from 21632 participants of which 20,746 participants were from one study; the remaining 886 participants were from the remaining13 studies. The heterogeneity of the data precludes a meta-analysis. There was no consensus among experts from the thirteen smaller studies; however, the largest study indicated that the specificity of visual readings was 54%. In particular, abnormalities and brain perfusions may lead to false positives. Quantitative analysis theoretically increases the reliability of findings for brain SPECT, but error rates are unknown and not published. Conclusion There is a lack of evidence to support the clinical utility of brain SPECT for the diagnosis and treatment of TBI.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→