Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 595

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Functional Plasticity or Vulnerability After Early Brain Injury?

Anderson, Vicki, Catroppa, Cathy, Morse, Sue, Haritou, Flora, Rosenfeld, Jeffrey·2005·Pediatrics
DOI 10.1542/peds.2004-1728
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common, acquired, childhood disability that may be used as a model to understand more completely the impact of early brain injury on both brain structure and day-to-day function. Contrary to previously held views of the “plasticity” of the young brain, recent research suggests that such early insults may have a profound impact on development. To date, these suggestions remain largely untested. Objectives. To plot changes in cognitive abilities after childhood TBI over the 30 months after injury and to examine the impact of age at injury on cognitive outcomes. Design. Prospective longitudinal study. Setting. Royal Children’s Hospital, Victoria, Australia. Main Outcome Measures. Global intellectual ability, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing speed. Participants. A total of 122 children admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of TBI were divided according to injury age, ie, young (age: 3–7 years) or old (age: 8–12 years), and injury severity (mild, moderate, or severe) and were evaluated acutely and at 12 and 30 months after injury. An additional sample of children injured before 3 years of age (n = 27) was compared with these groups with respect to global intellectual ability only. Results. A clear relationship was documented between injury severity and cognitive performance. For children who sustained severe injury, younger age at injury was associated with minimal, if any, recovery after injury, but better outcomes were observed after severe TBI among older children. Age at injury was not predictive of outcomes for children with mild or moderate TBI, although infants (age: 0–2.11 years) with moderate TBI showed poorer outcomes than did older children with injury of similar severity. Conclusions. Findings support a “double-hazard” model for severe and early brain insults and add to the ongoing debate regarding cerebral plasticity, suggesting that, contrary to traditional views, young children who sustain severe TBI in early childhood or moderate or severe TBI in infancy may be particularly vulnerable to significant residual cognitive impairment. From a clinical perspective, results indicate that long-term follow-up monitoring and management should be targeted to this high-risk group.

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 · 10.1542/peds.2004-1728

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, V., Catroppa, C., Morse, S., Haritou, F., & Rosenfeld, J.
Venue
Pediatrics
Publisher
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Published
2005-12-01
Volume
116
Issue
6
Pages
1374-1382
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
DOI
10.1542/peds.2004-1728
OpenAlex
W2017106001
Cited by
595
References
3
FWCI
8.07
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.