Refine
Year of publication
- 2023 (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Computed tomography imaging (1)
- Magnetic resonance imaging (1)
- Nonpenetrating (1)
- Spinal injuries (1)
- Vertebral body (1)
- Wounds (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2) (remove)
Investigators in the cognitive neurosciences have turned to Big Data to address persistent replication and reliability issues by increasing sample sizes, statistical power, and representativeness of data. While there is tremendous potential to advance science through open data sharing, these efforts unveil a host of new questions about how to integrate data arising from distinct sources and instruments. We focus on the most frequently assessed area of cognition - memory testing - and demonstrate a process for reliable data harmonization across three common measures. We aggregated raw data from 53 studies from around the world which measured at least one of three distinct verbal learning tasks, totaling N = 10,505 healthy and brain-injured individuals. A mega analysis was conducted using empirical bayes harmonization to isolate and remove site effects, followed by linear models which adjusted for common covariates. After corrections, a continuous item response theory (IRT) model estimated each individual subject’s latent verbal learning ability while accounting for item difficulties. Harmonization significantly reduced inter-site variance by 37% while preserving covariate effects. The effects of age, sex, and education on scores were found to be highly consistent across memory tests. IRT methods for equating scores across AVLTs agreed with held-out data of dually-administered tests, and these tools are made available for free online. This work demonstrates that large-scale data sharing and harmonization initiatives can offer opportunities to address reproducibility and integration challenges across the behavioral sciences.
Rationale and objectives: To provide a detailed analysis of injury patterns of the spine following blunt trauma and establish the role of supplementary MRI by evaluating discrepancies in the detection rates of damaged structures in CT and MRI.
Method: 216 patients with blunt trauma to the spine who underwent CT followed by supplementary MRI were included in this study. Two board-certified radiologists blinded to clinical symptoms and injury mechanisms independently interpreted all acquired CT and MRI images. The interpretation was performed using a dedicated catalogue of typical findings associated with spinal trauma and assessed for spinal stability using the AO classification systems.
Results: Lesions to structures associated with spinal instability were present in 31.0% in the cervical spine, 12.3% in the thoracic spine, and 29.9% in the lumbar spine. In all spinal segments, MRI provided additional information regarding potentially unstable injuries. Novel information derived from supplementary MRI changed clinical management in 3.6% of patients with injury to the cervical spine. No change in clinical management resulted from novel information on the thoracolumbar spine. Patients with injuries to the vertebral body, intervertebral disc, or spinous process were significantly more likely to benefit from supplementary MRI.
Conclusion: In patients that sustained blunt spinal trauma, supplementary MRI of the cervical spine should routinely be performed to detect injuries that require surgical treatment, whereas CT is the superior imaging modality for the detection of unstable injuries in the thoracolumbar spine.