SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Detection: Past, Present, and Future.

Biomedicines · 2022-10-03

DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10102472PMID: 36289734

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) can produce temporary biochemical imbalance due to leaks through cell membranes or disruption of the axoplasmic flow due to the misalignment of intracellular neurofilaments. If untreated, TBI can lead to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or total disability. Mild TBI (mTBI) accounts for about about 90 percent of all TBI cases. The detection of TBI as soon as it happens is crucial for successful treatment management. Neuroimaging-based tests provide only a structural and functional mapping of the brain with poor temporal resolution. Such tests may not detect mTBI. On the other hand, the electroencephalogram (EEG) provides good spatial resolution and excellent temporal resolution of the brain activities beside its portability and low cost. The objective of this paper is to provide clinicians and scientists with a one-stop source of information to quickly learn about the different technologies used for TBI detection, their advantages and limitations. Our research led us to conclude that even though EEG-based TBI detection is potentially a powerful technology, it is currently not able to detect the presence of a mTBI with high confidence. The focus of the paper is to review existing approaches and provide the reason for the unsuccessful state of EEG-based detection of mTBI.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.