Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Focal Lesions in Acute Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurocognitive Outcome: CT versus 3T MRI

Lee, Hana, Wintermark, Max, Gean, Alisa D., Ghajar, Jamshid, Manley, Geoffrey T., Mukherjee, Pratik·2008·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is associated with long-term cognitive deficits. This study compared the detection rate of acute post-traumatic focal lesions on computed tomography (CT) and 3T (Tesla) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with neurocognitive outcomes. Adults (n = 36; age range, 19-52 years) with a single episode of mTBI (Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15, as well as loss of consciousness and post-traumatic amnesia) were prospectively enrolled and had CT within 24 h of injury and 3T MR within 2 weeks of injury. The CT and MR scans were reviewed by two neuroradiologists who were blinded to clinical information. Twenty-eight of these mTBI subjects and 18 matched healthy volunteers also underwent serial neurocognitive testing. Of the 36 mTBI cases, intraparenchymal lesions were detected in 18 CT and 27 acute MR exams, consisting of hemorrhagic traumatic axonal injury (TAI) (eight CT, 17 MR), non-hemorrhagic TAI (zero CT, four MR), and cerebral contusions (13 CT, 21 MR). Mild TBI patients had significantly worse performance on working memory tasks than matched controls at the acute time point (<2 weeks), and at 1 month and at 1 year post-injury; yet there was no significant correlation of imaging findings with working memory impairment. In conclusion, 3T MR detected parenchymal lesions in 75% of this mTBI cohort with loss of consciousness and post-traumatic amnesia, a much higher rate than CT. However, the CT and 3T MR imaging findings did not account for cognitive impairment, suggesting that newer imaging techniques such as diffusion tensor imaging are needed to provide biomarkers for neurocognitive and functional outcome in mTBI.

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.2008.0566

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lee, H., Wintermark, M., Gean, A. D., Ghajar, J., Manley, G. T., & Mukherjee, P.
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
2008-09
Volume
25
Issue
9
Pages
1049-1056
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W1989079034
Cited by
283
References
1
FWCI
10.51
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.