Value of Repeat CT Brain in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients with High Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), particularly those at higher risk of having ICH progression, are typically prescribed a second head Computer Tomography (CT) scan to monitor the disease development. This study aimed to evaluate the role of a repeat head CT in MTBI patients at a higher risk of ICH progression by comparing the intervention rate between patients with and without ICH progression. METHODS: 192 patients with MTBI and ICH were treated between November 2019 to December 2020 at a single level II trauma center. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was used to classify MTBI, and initial head CT was performed according to the Canadian CT head rule. Patients with a higher risk of ICH progression, including the elderly (≥65 years old), patients on antiplatelets or anticoagulants, or patients with an initial head CT that revealed EDH, contusional bleeding, or SDH > 5 mm, and multiple ICH underwent a repeat head CT within 12 to 24 h later. Data regarding types of intervention, length of stay in the hospital, and outcome were collected. The risk of further neurological deterioration and readmission rates were compared between these two groups. All patients were followed up in the clinic after one month or contacted via phone if they did not return. RESULTS: 189 patients underwent scheduled repeated head CT, 18% had radiological intracranial bleed progression, and 82% had no changes. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of intervention rate, risk of neurological deterioration in the future, or readmission between them. CONCLUSION: Repeat head CT in mild TBI patients with no neurological deterioration is not recommended, even in patients with a higher risk of ICH progression.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".