Action Collaborative on Traumatic Brain Injury Care: Adapted Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outpatient follow-up care for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is inconsistent. The Action Collaborative on TBI Care, convened under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, aimed to standardize management with a clinical practice guideline. The guideline is intended for community-dwelling adults with TBI who are able to care for themselves at hospital discharge or who did not require acute hospital care. Guideline topics were selected and prioritized with input from individuals with lived experience and clinicians. Existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (k = 18) were identified from systematic literature reviews. Recommendations for each priority topic were extracted from existing guidelines and synthesized using the ADAPTE process. Strength of evidence ratings were assigned based on the American Academy of Family Physician's adaptation of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) through consensus voting. A draft guideline underwent external review by 20 health professional and brain injury organizations. The Action Collaborative on TBI Care guideline provides recommendations for 11 priority topics: (1) confirm the diagnosis; (2) determine whether emergency department evaluation is required; (3) request neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessment when indicated; (4) screen for social determinants of health; (5) provide guidance on return to usual activities; (6) educate the patient and family; (7) assess for risk of persistent symptoms; (8) prioritize which symptoms to target first; (9) initiate treatment for posttraumatic headache; (10) screen and initiate treatment for mental health disorders; and (11) decide if and when to refer to specialty care.
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 | 0.054 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".