The Association Between Hyponatremia and Prognosis in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of hyponatremia on prognosis in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), specifically regarding mortality and length of hospital stay. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science up to October 2024, using comprehensive search terms to cover all potential synonyms related to TBI and hyponatremia. Inclusion criteria required studies to be case-control in design, focus on TBI patients, and report on at least one outcome: mortality, length of stay, neurological scores (e.g., Glasgow Coma Scale), or functional recovery. Studies that were reviews, abstracts, or case reports were excluded, as were non-English publications. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted by 2 reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels were applied to assess study quality. Our findings indicate that although hyponatremia is common among TBI patients, it does not significantly increase mortality or extend hospital stay. This suggests that, although hyponatremia management is essential to prevent acute neurological complications, it may not critically impact overall patient outcomes in terms of survival or hospitalization duration. Future high-quality studies are needed to further clarify the role of hyponatremia in different TBI subtypes and its effect on long-term neurological recovery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".