Risk stratification of new-onset psychiatric disorders using clinically distinct traumatic brain injury phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) constitute a highly heterogeneous population, with varying risks for New-onset Psychiatric Disorders (NPDs). The objectives of this study were to identify TBI phenotypes and determine how NPDs differ among these phenotypes. METHODS: Hospitalized TBI patients from 2003 to 2019 were obtained from the provincial trauma registry. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance covariates among patients with TBI and controls. To uncover heterogeneity in TBI, latent class analysis (LCA)-based clustering was applied. LCA was conducted separately for two TBI cohorts: those with and without pre-injury psychiatric conditions The effect of classes on NPDs was assessed using log binomial regression models. RESULTS: A total of 3,453 patients with TBI and 13,112 controls were included in the analysis. In a conditional regression involving propensity matched patients with TBI and controls, TBI was significantly associated with the development of NPD-A (OR: 2.78; 95% CI: 2.49-3.09), as well as NPD-P (OR: 2.36; 95% CI: 2.07-2.70). Eight distinct latent classes were identified which differed in the incidence of NPDs. Four classes displayed a 53% (RR:1.53; 95% CI: 1.31-1.78), 48% (RR:1.48; 95% CI: 1.26-1.74), 28% (RR:1.28; 95% CI: 1.08-1.54), and 20% (RR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.03-1.39), increased NPD risk. CONCLUSION: TBI is a significant predictor of NPDs. There are clinically distinguishable phenotypes with different patterns of NPD risk among patients with TBI. Identifying individuals with respect to their phenotype may improve risk stratification of patients with TBI and promote early intervention for psychiatric care in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".