MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083198036 · doi:10.24911/ijmdc.51-1754944923

CT findings associated with poor outcomes in emergency patients with traumatic brain injury

2025· article· en· W7083198036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medicine in Developing Countries · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlasgow Coma ScalePathologicalTraumatic brain injuryRadiological weaponPopulationComa (optics)Observational studyComputed tomographyConcussion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is responsible for 90% of traumatic brain injuries and necessitates computed tomography (CT) imaging to detect intracranial lesions. Many mTBI patients recover fully, some develop adverse outcomes, and the prognostic value of pathological CT findings in this population is uncertain. This review aimed to systematically review and identify pathological CT features associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with mTBI. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was performed to identify relevant studies published between the years 2017 and 2025. Eligible studies included observational designs that assessed patients with mTBI (Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15) and reported CT findings correlated with clinical outcomes. Data extraction and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were performed by two reviewers. A total of 11 studies were included. The most commonly reported CT findings include contusions, subarachnoid hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma, and skull fractures. Temporal and frontal contusions were associated with poor functional outcomes. Some studies reported low benefits from repeated CT in stable patients. In high-risk groups, radiological progression rarely influenced management. Pathological CT findings in mTBI, mainly contusions and hemorrhagic lesions, are associated with increased risk of adverse 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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 venueInternational Journal of Medicine in Developing CountriesSame topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207