MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Delayed intracranial hemorrhage of patients with mild traumatic brain injury under antithrombotics on routine repeat CT scan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· article· en· W6958761539 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEgo Development and Educational Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)AntithromboticTraumatic brain injuryComputed tomographyRisk factorStroke (engine)Systematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients on antithrombotics experiencing mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) may benefit from a routine repeat CT scan to detect delayed intracranial hemorrhage (dICH). The primary outcome was the incidence of dICH on routine repeat CT scans of mTBI patients on antithrombotics within an intra-hospital observation period of up to 48 hours. The secondary outcomes were potential risk factors, readmissions, neurosurgical interventions, and mortality. A systematic review and a meta-analysis of single proportions were performed according to the PRISMA and PRESS guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Eighteen studies with 4613 patients were included. The pooled incidence of dICH was 2% [95% CI 1-2%] with similar rates between different antithrombotic regimens, even in combination. Of the 67 patients with dICH reported (1.45%), eleven required surgery (0.24%), while six died (0.13%). Loss of consciousness was a risk factor of dICH (risk ratio 3.04 [95%CI 0.96; 9.58]). A total of 48 patients were reported for readmission without associated death or surgical intervention. The contribution of this routine repeat CT scan should be questioned due to the low incidence, the limited clinical significance, and the unsubstantiated clinical benefit of early or systematic detection of dICH.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.022
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicEgo Development and Educational PracticesFrench-language works237,207