Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41341245›Full record

ArticleJMIR neurotechnology2024

Smartphone Pupillometry and Machine Learning for Detection of Acute Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Cohort Study.

Anthony J Maxin, Do H Lim, Sophie Kush, Jack Carpenter, Rami Shaibani, Bernice G Gulek, Kimberly G Harmon, Alex Mariakakis, Lynn B McGrath, Michael R Levitt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR neurotechnology, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Quantitative pupillometry as a sensitive biomarker for detecting subtle neurological impairment in mild traumatic brain injury - a pilot study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Anthony J MaxinDepartment of Neurological Surgery University of Washington Seattle, WA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6697-9966
Do H LimDepartment of Neurological Surgery University of Washington Seattle, WA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3945-7211
Sophie KushDepartment of Neurological Surgery Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6801-8637
Jack CarpenterSanta Clara University Santa Clara, CA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9543-8459
Rami ShaibaniDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4837-5672
Bernice G GulekDepartment of Neurological Surgery University of Washington Seattle, WA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1676-2961
Kimberly G HarmonDepartment of Family Medicine University of Washington Seattle, WA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3670-6609
Alex MariakakisDepartment of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto, ON Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9986-3345
Lynn B McGrathDepartment of Neurological Surgery Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7866-1509
Michael R LevittDepartment of Neurological Surgery University of Washington Seattle, WA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3612-3347

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Quantitative pupillometry is used in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with changes in pupil reactivity noted after blast injury, chronic mTBI, and sports-related concussion. Objective: We evaluated the diagnostic capabilities of a smartphone-based digital pupillometer to differentiate patients with mTBI in the emergency department from controls. Methods: Adult patients diagnosed with acute mTBI with normal neuroimaging were evaluated in an emergency department within 36 hours of injury (control group: healthy adults). The PupilScreen smartphone pupillometer was used to measure the pupillary light reflex (PLR), and quantitative curve morphological parameters of the PLR were compared between mTBI and healthy controls. To address the class imbalance in our sample, a synthetic minority oversampling technique was applied. All possible combinations of PLR parameters produced by the smartphone pupillometer were then applied as features to 4 binary classification machine learning algorithms: random forest, k-nearest neighbors, support vector machine, and logistic regression. A 10-fold cross-validation technique stratified by cohort was used to produce accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, and Results: Of 12 patients with acute mTBI, 33% (4/12) were female (mean age 54.1, SD 22.2 years), and 58% (7/12) were White with a median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 15. Of the 132 healthy patients, 67% (88/132) were female, with a mean age of 36 (SD 10.2) years and 64% (84/132) were White with a median GCS of 15. Significant differences were observed in PLR recordings between healthy controls and patients with acute mTBI in the PLR parameters, that are (1) percent change (mean 34%, SD 8.3% vs mean 26%, SD 7.9%; Conclusions: In this pilot study, quantitative smartphone pupillometry demonstrates the potential to be a useful tool in the future diagnosis of acute mTBI.

Indexed as

AIartificialartificial intelligencebiomarkersbrainbrain injuryconcussiondiagnosisdiagnosticdigital healthinjurymachine learningmild traumatic brain injurymobile phoneneuroimagingpilot studypupillarypupillary light reflexpupillometersmartphone pupillometry

Identifiers

PMID41341245
PMCPMC12671303

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.