Determining the Incidence of Concomitant Traumatic Brain Injury in Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A concomitant traumatic brain injury is often seen in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury. Unfortunately, the exact epidemiology of concomitant traumatic brain injury-traumatic spinal cord injury remains unknown. Our objective was to determine the incidence of concomitant traumatic brain injury-traumatic spinal cord injury and identify clinical factors associated with its occurrence. DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional study of 476 traumatic spinal cord injury patients was conducted. In all patients, baseline characteristics were routinely collected and the presence of a traumatic brain injury was sought prospectively by a specialized neurosurgeon using standardized diagnostic criteria based on clinical and radiological variables. RESULTS: Of the 476 included patients, 250 (53%) had isolated traumatic spinal cord injury and 226 (47%) had concomitant traumatic brain injury-traumatic spinal cord injury. Almost 85% of diagnosed traumatic brain injuries were mild. At the univariate level, patients with concomitant traumatic brain injury-traumatic spinal cord injury were more likely to present a history of drug/alcohol abuse ( P = 0.014), be involved in a motor vehicle accident ( P < 0.001), sustain a high energy mechanism ( P < 0.001), or present tetraplegia rather than paraplegia ( P = 0.021). These factors all remained significant at the multivariate level. DISCUSSION: A concomitant traumatic brain injury can be found in around 50% of traumatic spinal cord injury individuals. There are several clinical variables that should increase clinical suspicion of underlying traumatic brain injury and warrant further investigation to facilitate prompt identification and treatment of affected patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".