MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410242350 · doi:10.26416/psih.80.1.2025.10728

Treatment of post-traumatic brain injury using high-dose neurotrophic factors – a case report study

2025· article· en· W4410242350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Ungureanu, Denisa Gliția, Roland Stretea, Cătălina‐Angela Crișan

Bibliographic record

VenuePsihiatru ro · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryMedicineNeurotrophic factorsNeurotrophinAnesthesiaEmergency medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Post-traumatic brain injury (TBI) dementia is a serious neurodegenerative condition, with or without behavioral disturbances, that can dramatically change the quality of life of both patients and their caretakers, and without an available effective treatment, the prognosis of these patients is not favorable. Objective. The purpose of this case report study was to present the effects of the porcine brain-derivate hydrolysate (PBDH) in a severe case of post-TBI dementia and the gradual improvement of symptoms based on cognitive function tests. Methodology. A high-dose regimen of neurotrophic factors was initiated, consisting of PDBH 30 mL/administration, 10 days/month, for three months, while the treatment efficacy was monitored using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAFS). Conclusions. Following the completion of the PBDH regimen, the patient registered an improvement in the cognitive function, from severe impairment to moderate impairment, and in the functionality as well. The same regimen will be repeated three months later to maintain or improve the current results, which reflected the efficacy of PBDH in post-TBI dementia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsihiatru roSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207