Orthopedic Injured versus Uninjured Comparison Groups for Neuroimaging Research in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.
Orthopedic Injured versus Uninjured Comparison Groups for Neuroimaging Research in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.
复制标题
轻度创伤性脑损伤神经影像研究的骨科受伤与未受伤比较组。
DOI：
10.1089/neu.2017.5513
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Levin,HarveyS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wilde,ElisabethA;Ware,AshleyL;Li,Xiaoqi;Wu,TrevorC;McCauley,StephenR;Barnes,Amanda;Newsome,MaryR;Biekman,BrianD;Hunter,JillV;Chu,ZiliD;Levin,HarveyS
为了解决围绕轻度创伤性脑损伤 (mTBI) 研究最合适的比较组的争议，将 12-30 岁的 mTBI 患者与颅外骨科损伤 (OI) 患者组和人口背景相当的未受伤、典型发育 (TD) 参与者组进行比较。受伤的参与者接受了亚急性（96小时内）和晚期（3个月）弥散张量成像（DTI）； TD对照接受一次DTI。评估了常用研究的白质束的分数各向异性（FA）和平均扩散率（MD）的组间差异。对于 FA，亚急性组差异出现在双侧额枕下束（IFOF）和右下纵束（ILF）；对于 MD，亚急性组差异出现在总胼胝体、右钩束、IFOF、ILF 和双侧扣带束（CB）。在这些分析中，mTBI 和 TD 组之间普遍观察到差异（较低的 FA 和较高的 MD），但 mTBI 和 OI 组之间没有观察到差异。间隔 3 个月后，各组在左侧 IFOF FA 和右侧 IFOF 以及 CB MD 方面存在显着差异； TD 组的 FA 显着高于两个损伤组，MD 显着低于两个损伤组，但没有差异。这一模式有一个例外，即 OI 组左侧 ILF 的 FA 显着低于 TD 组，尽管两组均与 mTBI 组没有差异。 mTBI 和 OI 组的纵向结果大致相似。研究结果表明，根据所选的比较组，可以得出关于组级 DTI 分析的不同结论，这凸显了在该领域进行额外研究的必要性。在可能的情况下，mTBI 研究可能受益于 OI 和 TD 对照的纳入。
To address controversy surrounding the most appropriate comparison group for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) research, mTBI patients 12–30 years of age were compared with an extracranial orthopedic injury (OI) patient group and an uninjured, typically developing (TD) participant group with comparable demographic backgrounds. Injured participants underwent subacute (within 96 h) and late (3 months) diffusion tensor imaging (DTI); TD controls underwent DTI once. Group differences in fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) of commonly studied white matter tracts were assessed. For FA, subacute group differences occurred in the bilateral inferior frontal occipital fasciculus (IFOF) and right inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF), and for MD, differences were found in the total corpus callosum, right uncinate fasciculus, IFOF, ILF, and bilateral cingulum bundle (CB). In these analyses, differences (lower FA and higher MD) were generally observed between the mTBI and TD groups but not between the mTBI and OI groups. After a 3 month interval, groups significantly differed in left IFOF FA and in right IFOF and CB MD; the TD group had significantly higher FA and lower MD than both injury groups, which did not differ. There was one exception to this pattern, in which the OI group demonstrated significantly lower FA in the left ILF than the TD group, although neither group differed from the mTBI group. The mTBI and OI groups had generally similar longitudinal results. Findings suggest that different conclusions about group-level DTI analyses could be drawn, depending on the selected comparison group, highlighting the need for additional research in this area. Where possible, mTBI studies may benefit from the inclusion of both OI and TD controls.
登录
查看更多内容
按选定特征划分的伤害类型。
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1990
期刊：
Vital and health statistics. Series 10, Data from the National Health Survey
影响因子：
--
作者：
J. Collins
通讯作者：
J. Collins
爆炸受伤战斗部队的嗅觉障碍和创伤性脑损伤
影响因子：
9.9
作者：
Michael S. Xydakis;Lisa P. Mulligan;A. B. Smith;C. Olsen;Dina M Lyon;L. Belluscio
通讯作者：
L. Belluscio
轻中度脑外伤后脑震荡后综合征的诊断标准。
DOI：
10.1176/jnp.17.3.350
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences
影响因子：
--
作者：
C. Boake;S. McCauley;H. Levin;C. Pedroza;C. Contant;James X. Song;Sharon A. Brown;Heather S. Goodman;S. Brundage;P. Diaz
通讯作者：
P. Diaz
加尔维斯顿取向和遗忘测试：评估头部受伤后认知能力的实用量表
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
H. Levin;V. M. O'Donnell;R. Grossman
通讯作者：
R. Grossman
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Davenport, Elizabeth M.;Whitlow, Christopher T.;Maldjian, Joseph A.
通讯作者：
Maldjian, Joseph A.