Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27555810›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2016

Systems Biology, Neuroimaging, Neuropsychology, Neuroconnectivity and Traumatic Brain Injury.

Erin D Bigler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Intact moral decision-making in adults with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury.Brain impairment : a multidisciplinary journal of the Australian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. A network-based response feature matrix as a brain injury metric.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Why imaging data alone is not enough: AI-based integration of imaging, omics, and clinical data.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Erin D BiglerDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience Center, Brigham Young University Provo, UT, USA.
Brigham Young University · US

Funding

Social Outcomes in Pediatric Traumatic Brain InjuryR01HD048946 · NICHD · RESEARCH INST NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSP · PI YEATES, KEITH O · 2006 to 2010
$4.3M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD048946
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The patient who sustains a traumatic brain injury (TBI) typically undergoes neuroimaging studies, usually in the form of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In most cases the neuroimaging findings are clinically assessed with descriptive statements that provide qualitative information about the presence/absence of visually identifiable abnormalities; though little if any of the potential information in a scan is analyzed in any quantitative manner, except in research settings. Fortunately, major advances have been made, especially during the last decade, in regards to image quantification techniques, especially those that involve automated image analysis methods. This review argues that a systems biology approach to understanding quantitative neuroimaging findings in TBI provides an appropriate framework for better utilizing the information derived from quantitative neuroimaging and its relation with neuropsychological outcome. Different image analysis methods are reviewed in an attempt to integrate quantitative neuroimaging methods with neuropsychological outcome measures and to illustrate how different neuroimaging techniques tap different aspects of TBI-related neuropathology. Likewise, how different neuropathologies may relate to neuropsychological outcome is explored by examining how damage influences brain connectivity and neural networks. Emphasis is placed on the dynamic changes that occur following TBI and how best to capture those pathologies via different neuroimaging methods. However, traditional clinical neuropsychological techniques are not well suited for interpretation based on contemporary and advanced neuroimaging methods and network analyses. Significant improvements need to be made in the cognitive and behavioral assessment of the brain injured individual to better interface with advances in neuroimaging-based network analyses. By viewing both neuroimaging and neuropsychological processes within a systems biology perspective could represent a significant advancement for the field.

Indexed as

computed tomography (CT)connectivitymagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)neuroimagingneuropsychologyquantitative image analysissystems biologytraumatic brain injury (TBI)

Identifiers

PMID27555810
PMCPMC4977319
OpenAlexW2466421383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.