Time to resolution of symptoms and recovery after mild traumatic brain injury: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, with approximately 1 out of 200 people each year sustaining an mTBI in Europe. There is a growing awareness that recovery may take months or years. However, the exact time frame of recovery remains ill-defined in the literature. This systematic review aims to record the range of outcome measures used for mTBI and understand the time to recovery for different outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A prespecified literature search for articles in the English language will be conducted from database inception to the date of searches using MEDLINE and EMBASE. A trial search was conducted on 5 October 2023 with refinement of the search criteria following this. For each study, screening of the title, abstract and full text, as well as data extraction, will be done by two reviewers, with an adjudicating third reviewer if required. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for clinical trials and the Newcastle Ottawa score for cohort studies. The primary outcome is the time to resolution of symptoms in mTBI patients who have a full recovery, using any validated outcome measure. Results will be categorised by symptom groups, including but not limited to post-concussive symptoms, mental health, functional recovery and health-related quality of life. For mTBI patients who do not recover, this review will also explore the time to the plateau of symptoms and the sequelae of these symptoms. Where possible, meta-analysis will be undertaken, with a narrative review undertaken when this is not possible. Subgroup analyses of patients aged over 64 years, and patients with repetitive head injury, are planned. ETHICAL REVIEW AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not required, as no original data will be collected. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023462797.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".