MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410985704 · doi:10.1038/s44341-025-00020-8

Cellular mechanisms of traumatic brain injury

2025· review· en· W4410985704 on OpenAlexafffund
Gia Kang, Eng Kuan Moo, Rohan Banton, Oren E. Petel, Andrew R. Harris

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Biological Physics and Mechanics. · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersArmy Research OfficeU.S. Army Corps of EngineersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryNeuroscienceMedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is an acute injury with immediate and medium-term symptom presentation. However, our mechanistic understanding of mTBI and how mechanical loading of soft cellular tissues leads to injury is limited. The aim of this review is to introduce this interdisciplinary field to non-experts and provide an overview of our current understanding of how mechanical trauma contributes to cellular injury. Here, we compare the significance of various measures of mechanical loading including strain magnitude, strain rate, loading mode, and frequency, and their relative significance for cell and tissue injury in in vitro and ex vivo experimental models reported in the literature. Interestingly, while it is difficult to define a precise injury threshold value based on strain magnitude alone, cellular injury is commonly observed at strain rates of >0.1 s-1, higher than rates observed in many normal cell functions (< 0.01 s-1). We explore the role of the plasma membrane, cytoskeleton, and specialized structures in maintaining cell integrity during traumatic injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Biological Physics and Mechanics.Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207