MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Longitudinal pain intensity and interference symptomatology in mild traumatic brain injury: a TRACK-TBI study

2025· article· en· W7131281289 on OpenAlexaff
Christine J. Gotthardt, Jason Barber, Shawn R. Eagle, Thomas A. van Essen, Lindsay D. Nelson, Allen Ye Fu, Rick Vreeburg, Joye Tracey, Leila L. Etemad, Justin C. Wong, Patrick J. Belton, TRACK-TBI Investigators, Debbie Y. Madhok, Frederick K. Korley, Adam R. Ferguson, Abel Torres-Espin, Ann-Christine Duhaime, Cathra Halabi, Michael C. Huang, Phiroz E. Tarapore, Anthony M. DiGiorgio, Alex B. Valadka, Claudia S. Robertson, Pratik Mukherjee, E. L. Yuh, Ava M. Puccio, David O. Okonkwo, Joseph T. Giacino, Michael A. McCrea, Nancy R. Temkin, Geoffrey T. Manley, John Yue

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersWeill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San FranciscoNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNeurosurgery Research and Education Foundation
KeywordsGlasgow Coma ScaleIntensity (physics)Traumatic brain injuryConfidence intervalLongitudinal studyProspective cohort studySeverity of illnessInjury Severity Score

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: An estimated 50% to 75% of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) report chronic pain. Symptomatology evolution, subtypes, and risk factors remain poorly understood. We evaluated patient-reported pain intensity and interference with daily function in a longitudinal U.S. mTBI cohort. The Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Study prospectively enrolled patients with TBI across 18 trauma centers who received head computed tomography (CT) within 24 hours post-injury. Subjects aged ≥17 years with arrival Glasgow Coma Scale = 13 to 15, Marshall CT Score = 1 to 2, and PROMIS-Pain Intensity and Interference assessments at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-injury were included. Subjects with cranial surgery, major extracranial injury, or pre-injury musculoskeletal pain were excluded. Healthy controls (HCs) completed assessments at all timepoints. Pain assessment T-scores were compared using mixed-effect linear regressions. Adjusted mean differences (aMDs; [95% confidence intervals]) were reported. In 906 subjects (mTBI = 710, HC = 196), mean age was 39.6 ± 16.7-years, 64% were male, and 75% were White/Caucasian. In subjects with mTBI, 35% were CT positive, ≥80% reported pain intensity or interference symptoms at 2 weeks post-injury, and <20% received TBI care postdischarge. Compared with HCs, CT-negative subjects had statistically elevated pain intensity (aMD; 2 weeks: +12.8 [10.9-14.6], 3 months: +4.6 [2.7-6.6], 6 months: +3.4 [1.4-5.4], 12 months: +2.7 [0.7-4.7]) and interference (aMD; 2 weeks: +12.3 [10.7-13.9], 3 months: +4.6 [3.0-6.2], 6 months: +3.1 [1.4-4.8], 12 months: +2.1 [0.4-3.8]). Similarly vs HCs, CT-positive subjects had statistically elevated pain intensity (aMD; 2 weeks: +12.5 [10.4-14.6], 3 months: +3.8 [1.7-5.9], 6 months: +2.8 [0.6-5.0], 12 months: +2.4 [0.2-4.6]) and interference (aMD; 2 weeks: +11.7 [9.9-13.5], 3 months: +4.0, [2.2-5.8], 6 months: +2.9 [1.1-4.7], and 12 months: +2.2 [0.3-4.0]). Pain intensity and daily interference symptoms remained longitudinally elevated in patients with mTBI. The majority did not receive follow-up care for TBI, underscoring opportunities for preventative and therapeutic interventions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 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 venuePainSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207