Five‐Year Serial Brain <scp>MRI</scp> Analysis of Military Members Exposed to Chronic Sub‐Concussive Overpressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Special Operations Forces Command conducts explosives operations and training which exposes members to explosive charges at close proximity. This 5-year longitudinal trial was conducted in follow-up to our initial trial which examined military breachers with MRI and EEG pre and post blast exposure. PURPOSE: To examine brain MRI findings in military personnel exposed to multiple repeated blast exposures. STUDY TYPE: Five-year longitudinal prospective trial. POPULATION: Ninety-two males aged 23-42 with an average of 9.4 years of blast exposure. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T brain MRI/T1-weighted 3D with reconstruction in three planes, T2-weighted, T2-weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) 3D with reconstruction in three planes, T2-weighted gradient spin echo (GRE), saturation weighted images, DWI and ADC maps, diffusion tensor imaging. ASSESSMENT: All MRI scans were interpreted by the two neuroradiologists and one neuroradiology Fellow in a blinded fashion using a customized neuroradiology reporting form. STATISTICAL TESTS: Matching parametric statistics represented the number of participants whose brain parameters improved or deteriorated over time. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using log regression modeling to determine volume loss, white matter lesions, hemosiderosis, gliosis, cystic changes and enlarged Virchow Robin (VR) spaces. A Kappa (κ) statistic with a 95% CI was calculated to determine rater variability between readers. RESULTS: A significant deterioration was observed in volume loss (OR = 1.083, 95% CI 0.678-1.731, permutation test), white matter changes (OR: 0.754, 95% CI 0.442-1.284, permutation test), and enlargement of VR spaces (OR: 0.775, 95% CI 0.513-1.171). Interrater reliability was low: κ = 0.283, 0.156, and 0.557 for volume loss, white matter changes, and enlargement of VR spaces, respectively. DATA CONCLUSION: There were significant changes in brain volume, white matter lesions, and enlargement of VR spaces. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".