Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 669

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Mayo Classification System for Traumatic Brain Injury Severity

Malec, James F., Brown, Allen W., Leibson, Cynthia L., Flaada, Julie Testa, Mandrekar, Jayawant N., Diehl, Nancy N., Perkins, Patricia K.·2007·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a single TBI severity classification system based on commonly used TBI severity measures and indicators that (1) maximally uses available positive evidence to classify TBI severity in three categories: (a) Moderate-Severe (Definite) TBI, (b) Mild (Probable) TBI, (c) Symptomatic (Possible) TBI; (2) reflects current clinical knowledge and relevance; and (3) classifies a larger number of cases than single indicator systems with reasonable accuracy. MAIN FINDINGS: The study sample of a defined population consisted of 1501 unique Olmsted County residents with at least one confirmed TBI event from 1985 to 1999. Within the sample, 1678 TBI events were confirmed. Single measures of TBI severity were not available in a large percentage of these events, i.e., Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was absent in 1242 (74.0%); loss of consciousness, absent in 178 (70.2%), posttraumatic amnesia (PTA), absent in 974 (58.1%), head CT, not done in 827 (49.3%). The Mayo Classification System for TBI Severity was developed to classify cases based on available indicators that included death due to TBI, trauma-related neuroimaging abnormalities, GCS, PTA, loss of consciousness and specified post-concussive symptoms. Using the Mayo system, all cases were classified. For the Moderate-Severe (Definite) TBI classification, estimated sensitivity was 89% and estimated specificity was 98%. CONCLUSIONS: By maximally using relevant available positive evidence, the Mayo system classifies a larger number of cases than single indicator systems with reasonable accuracy. This system may be of use in retrospective research and for determination of TBI severity for planning postacute clinical care.

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 · 10.1089/neu.2006.0245

Cites

7 of 7 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 669

Metadata

Authors
Malec, J. F., Brown, A. W., Leibson, C. L., Flaada, J. T., Mandrekar, J. N., Diehl, N. N., & Perkins, P. K.
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
2007-09
Volume
24
Issue
9
Pages
1417-1424
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W2100240119
Cited by
669
References
7
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.