MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are we under utilizing Head u2018acheu2019 in Minor Traumatic Brain Injury?

2017· other· en· W6889787131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHead injuryTraumatic brain injuryHead traumaRest (music)Central nervous system diseaseComplicationBed rest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectivesThis preliminary study had two main objectives. Firstly, to find out the presence of generalized headache or localized headache at site of trauma at 2 hours of injury to head in GCS 15 patients and the possibility of having a serious head injury in patients having a significant generalized headache.MethodologyAll the Patients above 16 years of age who presented to ED with a GCS of 15 at 2 hours of head injury without any previous neurology, not on any anticlotting agents were included into the study. Patients with significant other injuries were excluded. A pre-tested questionnaire was filled by the first contact medical officer at 2 hours of injury and patient was followed up again at 24hours of injury. The questionnaire included the age, gender, mechanism of injury, criteria for Canadian CT rule. The severity of headache was assessed using visual analogue. The study was conducted in a Teaching Hospital for a period of 1 month.Results52 subjects were enrolled in the study in which 17(33%) were above 60 years of age. Altogether 16(30%) had CT brain and rest of the patients were sent for 24-hour head injury observation according to local protocol. Out of 16 who had CT, nearly 60% CT findings were normal. Rest of the 36 patients who sent for 24-hour observation except 2 patients who lost follow up, rest of them had no significant complain by 24 hours.Out of 52 subjects 48 patients complained of either localized headache (29, 55%) or generalized headache (19, 36%). In which all the patients who ended up with positive CT brain complained of significant (more than 5 in visual analogue scale) generalized headache. All Patients who complained of only a localized pain at 2 hours of injury ended up with negative findings at 24 hours.Conclusion:Significant generalized headache at 2 hours from head injury in GCS 15 patients should be concerned seriously and can be included in adult mTBI management protocols as a reliable clinical tool. Localized headache following mTBI without generalization is a good negative clinical finding.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0580.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.027
Open science0.0210.016
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.035

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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.156 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)French-language works237,207