Cited by 121Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchLong-Term Effects of COVID-19Mental Health Research Topics

Network Analysis and Precision Rehabilitation for the Post-concussion Syndrome

Open access
Iverson, Grant L.·2019·Frontiers in Neurology

Abstract

Some people experience persistent symptoms following a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI), and the etiology of those symptoms has been debated for generations. Post-concussion-like symptoms are caused by many factors both before and after MTBI, and this non-specificity is the bedrock of the conundrum regarding the existence of the post-concussion syndrome. A latent model or common cause theory for the syndrome is inconsistent with the prevailing biopsychosocial conceptualization. It is the thesis of this paper that adopting a network perspective for persistent symptoms following MTBI, including the post-concussion syndrome, could lead to new insights and targeted treatment and rehabilitation strategies. The network perspective posits that symptoms co-occur because they are strongly inter-related, activating, amplifying, and mutually reinforcing, not because they arise from a common latent disease entity. This approach requires a conceptual shift away from thinking that symptoms reflect an underlying disease or disorder toward viewing inter-related symptoms as constituting the syndrome or disorder. The symptoms do not arise from an underlying syndrome-the symptoms are the syndrome. A network analysis approach allows us to embrace heterogeneity and comorbidity, and it might lead to the identification of new approaches to sequenced care. The promise of precision rehabilitation requires us to better understand the interconnections among symptoms and problems so that we can produce more individualized and effective treatment and rehabilitation.

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 · 10.3389/fneur.2019.00489

Cites

172 of 172 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iverson, G. L.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Iverson, Grant L.
Venue
Frontiers in Neurology
Published
2019-05-29
Volume
10
Pages
489-489
ISSN
1664-2295 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2947325756
Cited by
121
References
165
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neurology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Spaulding Research Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
post-concussion syndrome, mild traumatic brain injury, symptom networks, symptom co-occurrence, precision rehabilitation, biopsychosocial model, symptom heterogeneity, comorbidities, personalized treatment

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