↓ Skip to main content

A Cross-Study Analysis for Reproducible Sub-classification of Traumatic Brain Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Cross-Study Analysis for Reproducible Sub-classification of Traumatic Brain Injury
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00606
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bing Si, Gina Dumkrieger, Teresa Wu, Ross Zafonte, David W. Dodick, Todd J. Schwedt, Jing Li

Abstract

Objective: To identify reproducible sub-classes of traumatic brain injury (TBI) that correlate with patient outcomes. Methods: Two TBI datasets from the Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research (FITBIR) Informatics System were utilized, Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) Pilot and Citicoline Brain Injury Treatment Trial (COBRIT). Patients included in these analyses had closed head injuries with Glasgow Comas Scale (GCS) scores of 13-15 at arrival at the Emergency Department (ED). Sparse hiearchical clustering was applied to identify TBI sub-classes within each dataset. The reproducibility of the sub-classes was evaluated by investigating similarities in clinical variable profiles and patient outcomes in each sub-class between the two datasets, as well as by using a statistical metric called in-group proportion (IGP). Results: Seven TBI sub-classes were identified in the first dataset. There were between-class differences in patient outcomes at 90 days (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE): p < 0.001) and 180 days (Trail Making Test (TMT): p = 0.03). Four of seven sub-classes were reproducible in the second dataset with very high IGPs (94, 100, 99, 97%). Seven TBI sub-classes were also identified in the second dataset. There were significant between-class differences in patient outcomes at 180 days (GOSE: p = 0.024; Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) p = 0.007; TMT: p < 0.001). Three of seven sub-classes were reproducible in the second dataset with very high IGPs (100% for all). Conclusions: Reproducible TBI sub-classes were identified across two independent datasets, suggesting that these sub-classes exist in a general population. Differences in patient outcomes according to sub-class assignment suggest that this sub-classification could be used to guide post-TBI prognosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Researcher 6 17%
Other 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Psychology 5 14%
Computer Science 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Mathematics 2 6%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,542,971
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,877
of 12,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,913
of 330,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#165
of 302 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 302 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.