MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416971442 · doi:10.1117/12.3082095

Exploring the relationship between microstructural changes in white matter and cognitive function in mild traumatic brain injury patients: an analysis using diffusion tensor imaging and tract-based spatial statistics

2025· article· W4416971442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hui Tan, Hongkun Liu, Gengbiao Zhang, Hong-Yi Zheng, Haidu Zhang, Lihua Chen, Yanyan Zeng, Wenbin Zheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite matterTraumatic brain injuryDiffusion MRICognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentSuperior longitudinal fasciculusInferior longitudinal fasciculusEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive impairments in mTBI may stem from white matter damage; this study used DTI and TBSS to examine these alterations and their link to cognitive function. Thirty mTBI patients and 30 controls underwent DTI, with clinical assessments including GCS, MoCA, and symptom questionnaires. TBSS revealed increased MD and RD in mTBI patients, while JHU Atlas analysis showed reduced AD, RD, and MD in specific tracts. mTBI patients had lower MoCA scores (21.73±4.33 vs. 27.70±1.11, P<0.000), with MD/RD reductions in thalamic anterior radiation and cortical pontine fibers (P<0.05). MoCA scores correlated with right superior longitudinal fasciculus MD (r=0.4133, p<0.05). TBSS indicates white matter damage in mTBI, with MD values correlating to cognitive performance, suggesting MD as a potential neurobiological marker for outcomes.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→