Rehabilitation interventions for oculomotor deficits in adults with mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is the most common form of TBI with many individuals suffering from symptoms suggestive of deficits in oculomotor function. Although the symptoms are often experienced transiently, almost 50% of individuals will experience persistent symptoms. Oculomotor deficits can last months after injury and decrease function and the ability to participate in work, school and sport. To date, rehabilitation interventions targeting oculomotor deficits in mTBI have been reported on in several studies with varying study designs; however, the effectiveness of these interventions on measures of oculomotor function has not been established. The purpose of this paper is to present a protocol for a systematic review that aims to examine the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for improving function in adults with oculomotor deficits after mTBI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic searches in Medline Ovid, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus will be conducted to identify experimental studies published in English from each databases inception date to present, involving adult patients with mTBI and oculomotor deficits. Citations will be saved and managed in EndNote V.20. Two independent reviewers will identify eligible studies and perform data abstraction. Any discrepancies will be solved by discussion, and a third reviewer will be consulted if necessary. A meta-analysis will be conducted for outcomes reported in two or more studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines will be followed for reporting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not involve primary data collection; therefore, formal ethical approval by an institutional review board is not required. Final results will be disseminated through open-access peer-reviewed publications. Abstracts will be presented at suitable national and international conferences or workshops. Furthermore, important information will be shared with clinical authorities, clinicians and at affiliated research institution-based websites and relevant servers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022352276.
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 | 0.056 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.012 |
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".