ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2020
Clinical validation of an optimized multimodal neurocognitive assessment of chronic mild TBI.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eye-Tracking Technologies for Cognitive Assessment After Acquired Brain Injury: Systematic Review.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Review
- Cognitive Symptoms Are Not Associated with Cognitive Performance in Post-Acute mTBI.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025Article
- A Framework to Advance Biomarker Development in the Diagnosis, Outcome Prediction, and Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of neurotrauma · 2022Review
- MRI detection of impairment of glymphatic function in rat after mild traumatic brain injury.Brain research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePrevious laboratory-based studies have shown that neurocognitive eye-tracking metrics are sensitive to chronic effects of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), even in individuals with normal performance on traditional neuropsychological measures. In this study, we sought to replicate and extend these findings in a military medical environment. We expected that metrics from the multimodal Fusion n-Back test would successfully distinguish chronic mTBI participants from controls, particularly eye movement metrics from the more cognitively challenging "1-Back" subtest.
methodsWe compared performance of participants with chronic mTBI (n = 46) and controls (n = 33) on the Fusion n-Back test and a battery of conventional neuropsychological tests. Additionally, we examined test reliability and the impact of potential confounds to neurocognitive assessment.
resultsOur results supported hypotheses; Fusion 1-Back metrics were successful in multimodal (saccadic and manual) classification of chronic mTBI versus control. In contrast, conventional neuropsychological measures could not distinguish these groups. Additional findings demonstrated the reliability of Fusion n-Back test metrics and provided evidence that saccadic metrics are resistant to confounding influences of age, intelligence, and psychiatric symptoms.
interpretationThe Fusion n-Back test could provide advantages in differential diagnosis for complex brain injury populations. Additionally, the rapid administration of this test could be valuable for screening patients in clinical settings where longer test batteries are not feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.