Role of biomarkers and emerging technologies in defining and assessing neurobiological recovery after sport-related concussion: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine the role of fluid-based biomarkers, advanced neuroimaging, genetic testing and emerging technologies in defining and assessing neurobiological recovery after sport-related concussion (SRC). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Searches of seven databases from 1 January 2001 through 24 March 2022 using keywords and index terms relevant to concussion, sports and neurobiological recovery. Separate reviews were conducted for studies involving neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, genetic testing and emerging technologies. A standardised method and data extraction tool was used to document the study design, population, methodology and results. Reviewers also rated the risk of bias and quality of each study. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies were included if they: (1) were published in English; (2) represented original research; (3) involved human research; (4) pertained only to SRC; (5) included data involving neuroimaging (including electrophysiological testing), fluid biomarkers or genetic testing or other advanced technologies used to assess neurobiological recovery after SRC; (6) had a minimum of one data collection point within 6 months post-SRC; and (7) contained a minimum sample size of 10 participants. RESULTS: A total of 205 studies met inclusion criteria, including 81 neuroimaging, 50 fluid biomarkers, 5 genetic testing, 73 advanced technologies studies (4 studies overlapped two separate domains). Numerous studies have demonstrated the ability of neuroimaging and fluid-based biomarkers to detect the acute effects of concussion and to track neurobiological recovery after injury. Recent studies have also reported on the diagnostic and prognostic performance of emerging technologies in the assessment of SRC. In sum, the available evidence reinforces the theory that physiological recovery may persist beyond clinical recovery after SRC. The potential role of genetic testing remains unclear based on limited research. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced neuroimaging, fluid-based biomarkers, genetic testing and emerging technologies are valuable research tools for the study of SRC, but there is not sufficient evidence to recommend their use in clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164558.
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 | 0.030 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".