SynthesisJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Application of Machine Learning in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Using Diffusion Tensor Imaging: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of Machine Learning in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Using Diffusion Tensor Imaging: A Systematic Review.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Pooled it
- Development and validation of a prognostic prediction model for patients with traumatic multiple fractures and hemorrhagic shock using an Automated Machine Learning framework: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a global health concern, with mild TBI (mTBI) being the most common form. Despite its prevalence, accurately diagnosing mTBI remains a significant challenge. While advanced neuroimaging techniques like diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) offer promise for more robust diagnosis, their clinical application is limited by inconsistent and heterogeneous post-injury findings. Recently, machine learning (ML) techniques, utilizing DTI metrics as features, have shown increasing utility in mTBI research. This approach helps identify distinct between-group features, paving the way for more precise and efficient diagnostic and prognostic tools. PURPOSE: This review aims to analyze studies employing ML techniques to assess changes in DTI metrics after mTBI. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review. POPULATION OR SUBJECTS OR PHANTOM OR SPECIMEN OR ANIMAL MODEL: We conducted a systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, on the application of ML with DTI for mTBI diagnosis and prognosis on human subjects. This review identified 36 articles. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: N/A. ASSESSMENT: Study quality was assessed using the Modified QualSyst Assessment Tool. STATISTICAL TESTS: N/A.
resultsThe review found ML techniques using DTI Metrics either alone or in combination with other modalities (i.e., structural MRI, functional MRI, clinical scores, or demographics) can effectively classify mTBI patients from controls. These approaches have also demonstrated potential in classifying mTBI patients according to the degree of recovery and symptom severity. In addition, these ML models showed strong predictive power toward cognitive scores and brain structural decline, as quantified by brain-predicted age difference. DATA
conclusionLarger, externally validated studies are needed to develop robust models for the diagnosis and prognosis of mTBI, using imaging biomarkers (including DTI) in conjunction with non-imaging, on-field, or clinical data. Despite the high predictive performance of ML algorithms, the clinical application remains distant, likely due to the small sample size of studies and lack of external validation, which raises concerns about overfitting. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 5. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.