Standardized Outcomes for Randomized Controlled Trials Targeting Early Interventions in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Protocol for the Development of a Core Outcome Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With more than 60 million new cases around the world each year, traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes substantial mortality and morbidity. Managing TBI is a major human, social, and economic concern. In the last 20 years, there has been an increase in clinical trials in neurocritical care, leading mostly to negative results. The evaluation of neurological outcomes, predominantly as primary outcomes, using clinical scales (Glasgow Outcome Scale) has limitations that could explain these results. Moreover, patient-centered outcomes are seldom reported despite their recognized clinical relevance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project is to establish a core outcome set (COS) for patients with moderate-to-severe TBI in randomized control trials in neurocritical care research. METHODS: This study will follow five distinct steps: (1) systematic review to identify outcomes that have been reported in trials; (2) semistructured interviews with patients and their families to identify their priorities after TBI and explore potential patient-centered outcomes; (3) health care stakeholder focus groups with clinicians, researchers, and policy makers to describe potential outcomes; (4) an eDelphi survey with stakeholder groups to make a list of previously identified core outcomes; and (5) a consensus workshop to establish a COS for moderate-to-severe TBI clinical trials. RESULTS: : The systematic review was published in August 2024. Regarding Step 2, 30 semistructured interviews of patients and relatives were performed from July 2021 to December 2023, and analyses were completed in October 2024. Step 3 is currently under development, and Step 4 is planned for the end of 2025. Step 5 is expected to occur during fall/winter 2026. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a COS, to be consistently measured and reported in TBI trials in neurocritical care will ensure rigorous reporting, avoid bias, and improve the integrity, transparency, and usability of clinical research. The French context of the study is the main limitation, but we are seeking international collaboration on the project. The results of each step of the project will be disseminated through abstracts, publications, and patient associations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54525.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.121 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".