Consensus on the management of traumatic brain injury in older adults: Results from a Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: As the world population is rapidly becoming older, the incidence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is increasing among older adults with vast implications for brain health of older adults in Europe. Due to differences from younger patients, there are areas of uncertainty in the assessment, diagnosis and management of TBI in older adults. Research question: To reach a consensus among experts on statements regarding the definition of old age, assessment, diagnosis and management of traumatic brain injury in older adults. Materials and methods: A modified Delphi method consisting of two online rounds was organised, followed by an in-person meeting. Consensus was defined as >75 % agreement. In the second online round the experts were able to view their first assessment and the average of the group. Some statements were rephrased and presented again in the in-person meeting. Questions with numerical data could not be assessed by consensus and descriptive and non-parametric statistics were used to analyze them. Results: Experts (n = 72), from different nationalities (Europe, United States, Latin America, Africa and Asia) and specialities (Neurosurgery, Emergency Medicine, Intensive care medicine) responded on 62 statements. Consensus was finally reached on 44 statements regarding the definition of older adulthood, as well as the assessment, surgical and intensive care management, discharge, and rehabilitation of patients. Discussion and conclusions: This consensus reinforces the importance of this area for physicians and researchers interested in traumatic brain injury. It signals important areas of agreement as well as future topics for research and specific knowledge gaps.
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 | 0.099 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".