MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Associated With Persistent Symptoms Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2025· article· en· W4415294220 on OpenAlexaff
W. Frank Peacock, Damon Kuehl, Ramon Diaz‐Arrastia, Jake Vanlandingham, Martin Than, Chad Cannon, Adam J. Singer, Nazanin Mirshahi, Justin Weppner, Robert Gerwien

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsDow Chemical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryPost-concussion syndromeConcussionPoison controlPresentation (obstetrics)Injury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common presentation in which it is clinically difficult at presentation to identify patients at risk for persistent symptoms, defined as lasting longer than 30 days. Few studies report the time period from injury to presentation; thus, it may be useful to determine early findings that identify patients who are likely to have persistent 30-day symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To identify parameters associated with persistent 30-day symptoms in adult emergency department (ED) patients presenting shortly after a mild TBI (mTBI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort analysis used the large and still enrolling HeadSMART II (Head Injury Serum Markers and Multi-modalities for Assessing Response to Trauma II) dataset. HeadSMART II began enrollment in 2021, and all patients with mTBI enrolled as of July 1, 2024, were included in this analysis. EXPOSURE: A diagnosis of mTBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 or higher. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was mTBI symptoms persisting 30 days after presentation. The 30-day Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire was used to define persistent symptoms. Wilcoxon rank-sum testing was applied to continuous variables, and the Fisher exact test was applied to categorical variables. RESULTS: Overall, 803 HeadSMART II patients (median [IQR] age, 41.0 [27.0-57.0] years; 404 male [50.3%]) with 30-day follow-up data were assessed at a median (IQR) of 1.5 (0.7-10.6) hours after their injury. Most patients were employed (565 of 794 patients [71.2%]) and had a fall or head struck by object as the mechanism of injury (387 of 802 patients [48.3%]). Trauma above clavicle (279 of 404 men [69.1%] vs 231 of 398 women [58.0%]) and the presence of fracture (103 of 403 men [25.6%] vs 60 of 396 women [15.2%]) or laceration (156 of 404 men [38.6%] vs 94 of 398 women [23.6%]) occurred more often in men than in women, whereas headaches occurred more often in women than in men (338 of 398 women [84.9%] vs 314 of 401 men [78.3%]). Over time, TBI symptoms declined for all. The presentation characteristics associated with persistent 30-day symptoms included female sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% CI, 1.54-2.87); elevated body mass index (ie, 32.6; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06); mechanism of injury, including fall (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.28-7.67), vehicular crash (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.68-10.19), and abuse (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.43-10.73); a prior diagnosis of headaches or migraines (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.94-3.92), depression (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.64-3.10), or anxiety (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.83-3.48); and the presence of focal neurological deficits (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.10-2.10), headache (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.35-3.32), or multiple computed tomography scans (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.49-3.36) at intake. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the 803 patients with mTBI with complete 30-day data and a median initial presentation of 90 minutes after injury, those with any of the 9 identified baseline characteristics were more likely than patients without those characteristics to have persistent postconcussive symptoms at 30 days.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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 venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207