MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387965061 · doi:10.1089/neu.2023.0196

Evidence of Ongoing Cerebral Microstructural Reorganization in Children With Persisting Symptoms Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A NODDI DTI Analysis

2023· article· en· W4387965061 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Athena Stein, Xuan Vinh To, Fatima Nasrallah, Karen Barlow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsUncinate fasciculusWhite matterDiffusion MRITraumatic brain injurySuperior longitudinal fasciculusFasciculusConcussionMedicineVoxelPsychologyPoison controlMagnetic resonance imagingFractional anisotropyPsychiatryInjury preventionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 300–550 children per 100,000 sustain a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) each year, of whom ∼25–30% have long-term cognitive problems. Following mTBI, free water (FW) accumulation occurs in white matter (WM) tracts. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) can be used to investigate structural integrity following mTBI. Compared with conventional DTI, neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) orientation dispersion index (ODI) and fraction of isolated free water (FISO) metrics may allow a more advanced insight into microstructural damage following pediatric mTBI. In this longitudinal study, we used NODDI to explore whole-brain and tract-specific differences in ODI and FISO in children with persistent symptoms after mTBI ( n = 80) and in children displaying clinical recovery ( n = 32) at 1 and 2–3 months post-mTBI compared with healthy controls (HCs) ( n = 21). Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and voxelwise two-sample t tests were conducted to compare whole-brain and tract-specific diffusion across groups. All results were corrected at positive false discovery rate (pFDR) <0.05. We also examined the association between NODDI metrics and clinical outcomes, using logistical regression to investigate the value of NODDI metrics in predicting future recovery from mTBI. Whole-brain ODI was significantly increased in symptomatic participants compared with HCs at both 1 and 2 months post-injury, where the uncinate fasciculus (UF) and inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFOF) were particularly implicated. Using region of interest (ROI) analysis in significant WM, bilateral IFOF and UF voxels, symptomatic participants had the highest ODI in all ROIs. ODI was lower in asymptomatic participants, and HCs had the lowest ODI in all ROIs. No changes in FISO were found across groups or over time. WM ODI was moderately correlated with a higher youth-reported post-concussion symptom inventory (PCSI) score. With 87% predictive power, ODI (1 month post-injury) and clinical predictors (age, sex, PCSI score, attention scores) were a more sensitive predictor of recovery at 2–3 months post-injury than fractional anisotropy (FA) and clinical predictors, or clinical predictors alone. FISO could not predict recovery at 2–3 months post-injury. Therefore, we found that ODI was significantly increased in symptomatic children following mTBI compared with HCs at 1 month post-injury, and progressively decreased over time alongside clinical recovery. We found no significant differences in FISO between groups or over time. WM ODI at 1 month was a more sensitive predictor of clinical recovery at 2–3 months post-injury than FA, FISO, or clinical measures alone. Our results show evidence of ongoing microstructural reorganization or neuroinflammation between 1 and 2–3 months post-injury, further supporting delayed return to play in children who remain symptomatic. We recommend future research examining the clinical utility of NODDI following mTBI to predict recovery or persistence of post-concussion symptoms and thereby inform management of mTBI.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207