MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384820628 · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02284-4

Prognostic factors for persistent symptoms in adults with mild traumatic brain injury: an overview of systematic reviews

2023· review· en· W4384820628 on OpenAlexafffund
Julien Déry, Béatrice Ouellet, Élaine de Guise, Ève-Line Bussières, Marie‐Ève Lamontagne

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsConcussionMedicineSystematic reviewTraumatic brain injuryData extractionPopulationMEDLINEPoison controlInjury preventionPsychiatryMedical emergencyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is an increasing public health problem, because of its persistent symptoms and several functional consequences. Understanding the prognosis of a condition is an important component of clinical decision-making and can help to guide the prevention of persistent symptoms following mTBI. The prognosis of mTBI has stimulated several empirical primary research papers and many systematic reviews leading to the identification of a wide range of factors. We aim to synthesize these factors to get a better understanding of their breadth and scope. METHODS: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched in databases systematic reviews synthesizing evidence about the prognosis of persistent symptoms after mTBI in the adult population. Two reviewers independently screened all references and selected eligible reviews based on eligibility criteria. They extracted relevant information using an extraction grid. They also rated independently the risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. We synthesized evidence into a comprehensive conceptual map to facilitate the understanding of prognostic factors that have an impact on persistent post-concussion symptoms. RESULTS: From the 3857 references retrieved in a database search, we included 25 systematic reviews integrating the results of 312 primary articles published between 1957 and 2019. We examined 35 prognostic factors from the systematics reviews. No single prognostic factor demonstrated convincing and conclusive results. However, age, sex, and multiple concussions showed an affirmatory association with persistent post-concussion outcomes in systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: We highlighted the need for a comprehensive picture of prognostic factors related to persistent post-concussion symptoms. We believe that these prognostic factors would guide clinical decisions and research related to prevention and intervention regarding persistent post-concussion symptoms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020176676.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.012
Bibliometrics0.0230.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.019 · 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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207