Advocates, Academics, Survivors and Clinicians to END Intimate Partner Violence (ASCEND-IPV) initiative: a prospective observational case–control study protocol to identify plasma biomarkers of intimate partner violence (IPV)-caused brain injury (BI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although as many as 92% of survivors of physical intimate partner violence (IPV) report impacts to the head and/or non-fatal strangulation (NFS) that raise clinical suspicion of brain injury (BI), there are no evidence-based methods to document and characterise BI in this vulnerable population, limited clinical practice guidelines and insufficient understanding about long-term risks for conditions including Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). This leaves most survivors of IPV-caused BI (IPV-BI), overwhelmingly women, without adequate access to medical care and support, safe housing, back-to-school/work accommodations or follow-up care for long-term neurocognitive health. Although traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an established ADRD risk factor, little is known about the attributable risk of ADRD due to IPV-BI, particularly in women. METHODS OF ANALYSIS: Our overarching objectives are to (1) use plasma biomarkers as novel tools to assist clinicians to improve diagnosis of IPV-BI at the acute, subacute and chronic stages in a manner sensitive to the needs of this vulnerable population and (2) raise awareness of the importance of considering IPV-BI as a potential ADRD risk factor. A prospective observational study funded by the US Department of Defense (HT9425-24-1-0462), Brain Canada (6200) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (523320-NWT-CAAA-37499) leverages collaborative research at multiple clinical sites in British Columbia to maximise equity, diversity and inclusion among participants, with a target enrolment of n=600 participants.The Advocates, Academics, Survivors and Clinicians to END Intimate Partner Violence Biomarkers study, which is predicated on pre-specified research questions, represents one of the most significant community-based studies on plasma biomarkers affected by an IPV-BI incident. Of particular significance is the fact our study uses robust biomarker approaches being applied in the TBI and ADRD fields to determine how the biomarker profile after IPV-BI compares to typical TBI and the early stage of neurodegenerative disorders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board (H24-01990, H22-02241 and H16-02792) and the Island Health Research Ethics Board (H22-03510). Upon publication of primary papers, de-identified data and biospecimens will be made widely available, including the US Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research (FITBIR) federated database. Our data and integrated knowledge translation activities with persons with lived experience of IPV-BI and those working in the healthcare sector will be synthesised into co-designed and implemented knowledge tools to improve outcomes for survivors of IPV-BI.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".