MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7045520791

Assessment and outcomes in mild traumatic brain injury in the Emergency Department

2018· dissertation· en· W7045520791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQueen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentTraumatic brain injuryObservational studyProspective cohort studyNeurocognitiveHead injuryDepression (economics)Cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is common, affecting up to 600/100,000 people. Mild TBI accounts for up to 90% of all TBI. The Emergency Department attendance rate for head injuries is as high as 1800/100,000 population, and 15-20% of those attendances result in hospital admission. Mild TBI causes symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, disordered balance, cognitive dysfunction and depression which in turn impact on quality of life. Accurate risk assessment and prognostication of patients with acute neurological conditions in the Emergency Department is essential. This PhD consists of a systematic review that examines the hard outcome of ‘return to work’ following a mild TBI; a prospective observational cohort study that reports the difference in neurocognitive function and symptoms that patients experience at baseline and three days after mild TBI; and a prospective observational cohort study that reports the number of patients that attend the Emergency Department with seizure secondary to TBI, and the value of two biomarkers in predicting the recurrence of seizures in patients that attend the Emergency Department having had a seizure.
\nThis thesis comprises three studies in which I investigated the short and long-term effects of mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and prognostication in seizure. In study one, I undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine return to work times for adults with mild TBI. The primary objective was to determine the time taken to return to work following a mild TBI. Articles were included if they reported on adults with mild TBI and recorded the outcome return to work. Six electronic databases and eight clinical trial registries were searched. A narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Bias was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa quality assessment tool.
\nThe second study was a prospective observational cohort study of adults with mild TBI and a comparison group of Emergency Department patients without brain injury. The primary outcomes were neurocognitive function and concussion symptom severity at baseline and 72 hours. Adult patients with mild TBI within the last 24 hours were included in the mild TBI group, and adults that attended the Emergency Department with trauma beneath the clavicle, or with a non-neurological medical condition, were included in the comparison group. Outcomes were measured on the Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SCA) and the Concussion Symptom Inventory (CSI) at baseline in the Emergency Department and at follow up at 72 hours. Comparisons were made between baseline and follow up, and between groups at single time points.
\nThe third study was a prospective observational cohort study designed to assess the prognostic value of the biomarkers S100B and copeptin in patients with seizure. Adult patients attending the Emergency Department with seizure of any cause were included. The primary outcome was a composite of seizure recurrence, death, hospitalisation, rehospitalisation or re-attendance at the Emergency Department at seven days. S100B and copeptin were measured in the Emergency Department. Statistical comparison of the two groups was performed, optimum thresholds of the biomarkers for diagnosing the endpoint were derived, diagnostic test characteristics were calculated, and logistic regression modelling was performed to identify variables most closely associated with the outcome. The aetiology of the seizure was identified and the proportion that had a seizure secondary to TBI was recorded.
\nIn the systematic review and meta-analysis, 14 studies were included. Three reported the average time taken to return to work, and 12 reported the proportion of patients that have returned to work by a pre-specified time point. The pooled proportion of people returned to work at one, three, six and 12 months was 56%, 75%, 83%, and 89% respectively.
\nIn the study of short-term effects of mild TBI, 240 patients were included, of which 189 had mild TBI and 51 comprised the non-brain injured comparison group. Patients with mild TBI had marked neurocognitive impairment (SAC at baseline 25 [23-27], difference in SAC score between brain injured and non-brain injured 1, p=0.02, [95% confidence interval [CI] -1.4 to -2.4]), worse symptom severity (CSI at baseline 9 [4-21], difference in CSI between brain injured and non-brain injured 9, p<0.001 [95% CI 8.4 to 13.7]), and high numbers of symptoms (number of symptoms at baseline 4 [2-8], difference between brain injured and non-brain injured 4, p<0.001 [95% CI 2.6 to 4.4]), all of which persisted at 72 hours.
\nIn the study of patients with seizures, 97 patients were recruited, of which 52% met the composite primary endpoint. No patients attended with a seizure as a consequence of TBI. S100B and copeptin were significantly higher in patients with compared to without the composite primary endpoint: 0.22 μg/L (95% CI 0.14 to 0.31) vs 0.11 μg/L (95% CI 0.08 to 0.14) (difference 0.02 μg/L, p = 0.01, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.2) for S100B; and 77.0 pmol/L (95% CI 44.3 to 109.7) vs 27.0 (95% CI 18.2 to 35.9) (difference 50 pmol/L, p = 0.004, 95% CI 16.2 to 83.8) for copeptin. Thresholds of 0.088 μg/L and 6.26 pmol/L were identified for S100B and copeptin respectively. At those thresholds, S100B sensitivity and specificity was 58% (95% CI 43-72) and 60% (95% CI 44-74); and copeptin sensitivity and specificity was 80% (95% CI 66-90) and 21% (95% CI 11-36). Epilepsy, complex partial seizure, provoked/acute symptomatic seizure, and pyrexia were identified as factors independently associated with the primary outcome but there was no additional value when the biomarkers were included in the model.
\nIn this body of work, I have shown that patients with mild traumatic brain injury have impaired neurocognitive function and a significant symptom burden that persists for several days, and in some patients is likely to persist for many months. Although most patients return to normal activities, including working, by three months after a mild traumatic brain injury, up to a tenth of patients are still unable to return to work at one year after the injury. Around half of patients that attend an Emergency Department with a seizure go on to be admitted or have another seizure by one week, but the biomarkers
\nS100B and copeptin add no extra value to current prediction tools in identifying who will have a recurrent seizure, and few patients have a seizure secondary to TBI.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQueen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London)Same topicHealthcare Systems and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207