Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 198

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are functional deficits in concussed individuals consistent with white matter structural alterations: combined FMRI & DTI study

Open access
Zhang, K., Johnson, B., Pennell, D., Ray, W., Sebastianelli, W., Slobounov, S.·2010·Experimental Brain Research

Abstract

There is still controversy in the literature whether a single episode of mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) results in short-term functional and/or structural deficits as well as any induced long-term residual effects. With the inability of traditional structural brain imaging techniques to accurately diagnosis MTBI, there is hope that more advanced applications like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) will be more specific in diagnosing MTBI. In this study, 15 subjects who have recently suffered from sport-related MTBI and 15 age-matched normal controls underwent both fMRI and DTI to investigate the possibility of traumatic axonal injury associated with functional deficits in recently concussed but asymptomatic individuals. There are several findings of interest. First, MTBI subjects had a more disperse brain activation pattern with additional increases in activity outside of the shared regions of interest (ROIs) as revealed by FMRI blood oxygen level–dependent (BOLD) signals. The MTBI group had additional activation in the left dorsal-lateral prefrontal cortex during encoding phase of spatial navigation working memory task that was not observed in normal controls. Second, neither whole-brain analysis nor ROI analysis showed significant alteration of white matter (WM) integrity in MTBI subjects as evidenced by fractional anisotropy FA (DTI) data. It should be noted, however, there was a larger variability of fractional anisotropy (FA) in the genu, and body of the corpus callosum in MTB subjects. Moreover, we observed decreased diffusivity as evidenced by apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) at both left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DL-PFC) in MTBI subjects (P < 0.001). There was also a positive correlation (P < 0.05) between ADC and % change of fMRI BOLD signals at DL-PFC in MTBI subjects, but not in normal controls. Despite these differences we conclude that overall, no consistent findings across advanced brain imaging techniques (fMRI and DTI) were observed. Whether the lack of consistency across research techniques (fMRI & DTI) is due to time frame of scanning, unique nature of MTBI and/or technological issues involved in FA and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) quantification is yet to be determined.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00221-010-2294-3

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 198

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, K., Johnson, B., Pennell, D., Ray, W., Sebastianelli, W., & Slobounov, S.
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Published
2010-05-23
Volume
204
Issue
1
Pages
57-70
ISSN
  • 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1106
OpenAlex
W1973123465
Cited by
198
References
4
FWCI
12.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.