Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 681

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

White matter damage and cognitive impairment after traumatic brain injury

Open access
Kinnunen, K. M., Greenwood, R., Powell, J. H., Leech, R., Hawkins, P. C., Bonnelle, V., Patel, M. C., Counsell, S. J., Sharp, D. J.·2011·Brain
DOI 10.1093/brain/awq347
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

White matter disruption is an important determinant of cognitive impairment after brain injury, but conventional neuroimaging underestimates its extent. In contrast, diffusion tensor imaging provides a validated and sensitive way of identifying the impact of axonal injury. The relationship between cognitive impairment after traumatic brain injury and white matter damage is likely to be complex. We applied a flexible technique-tract-based spatial statistics-to explore whether damage to specific white matter tracts is associated with particular patterns of cognitive impairment. The commonly affected domains of memory, executive function and information processing speed were investigated in 28 patients in the post-acute/chronic phase following traumatic brain injury and in 26 age-matched controls. Analysis of fractional anisotropy and diffusivity maps revealed widespread differences in white matter integrity between the groups. Patients showed large areas of reduced fractional anisotropy, as well as increased mean and axial diffusivities, compared with controls, despite the small amounts of cortical and white matter damage visible on standard imaging. A stratified analysis based on the presence or absence of microbleeds (a marker of diffuse axonal injury) revealed diffusion tensor imaging to be more sensitive than gradient-echo imaging to white matter damage. The location of white matter abnormality predicted cognitive function to some extent. The structure of the fornices was correlated with associative learning and memory across both patient and control groups, whilst the structure of frontal lobe connections showed relationships with executive function that differed in the two groups. These results highlight the complexity of the relationships between white matter structure and cognition. Although widespread and, sometimes, chronic abnormalities of white matter are identifiable following traumatic brain injury, the impact of these changes on cognitive function is likely to depend on damage to key pathways that link nodes in the distributed brain networks supporting high-level cognitive functions.

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 · 10.1093/brain/awq347

Cites

12 of 12 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 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kinnunen, K. M., Greenwood, R., Powell, J. H., Leech, R., Hawkins, P. C., Bonnelle, V., Patel, M. C., Counsell, S. J., & Sharp, D. J.
Venue
Brain
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2010-12-29
Volume
134
Issue
2
Pages
449-463
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
DOI
10.1093/brain/awq347
OpenAlex
W2143812931
Cited by
681
References
12
FWCI
24.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.