Magnetic resonance imaging in traumatic brain injury: a survey of clinical practitioners’ experiences and views on current practice and obstacles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has revolutionized our capacity to examine brain alterations in traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, little is known about the level of implementation of MRI techniques in clinical practice in TBI and associated obstacles. METHODS: A diverse set of health professionals completed 19 multiple choice and free text survey questions. RESULTS: Of the 81 respondents, 73.4% reported that they acquire/order MRI scans in TBI patients, and 66% indicated they would prefer MRI be more often used with this cohort. The greatest impediment for MRI usage was scanner availability (57.1%). Less than half of respondents (42.1%) indicated that they perform advanced MRI analysis. Factors such as dedicated experts within the team (44.4%) and user-friendly MRI analysis tools (40.7%), were listed as potentially helpful to implement advanced MRI analyses in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Results suggest a wide variability in the purpose, timing, and composition of the scanning protocol of clinical MRI after TBI. Three recommendations are described to broaden implementation of MRI in clinical practice in TBI: 1) development of a standardized multimodal MRI protocol; 2) future directions for the use of advanced MRI analyses; 3) use of low-field MRI to overcome technical/practical issues with high-field MRI.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".