Home › Research › Risk factors
Traumatic brain injury and reserve
Erin D Bigler, Yaakov Stern. Handbook of clinical neurology, 2015
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The potential role of brain and cognitive reserve in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is reviewed. Brain reserve capacity (BRC) refers to preinjury quantitative measures such as brain size that relate to outcome. Higher BRC implies threshold differences when clinical deficits will become apparent after injury, where those individuals with higher BRC require more pathology to reach that threshold. Cognitive reserve (CR) refers to how flexibly and efficiently the individual makes use of available brain resources. The CR model suggests the brain actively attempts to cope with brain damage by using pre-existing cognitive processing approaches or by enlisting compensatory approaches. Standard proxies for CR include education and IQ although this has expanded to include literacy, occupational attainment, engagement in leisure activities, and the integrity of social networks. Most research on BRC and CR has taken place in aging and degenerative disease but these concepts likely apply to the effects of TBI, especially with regards to recovery. Since high rates of TBI occur in those under age 35, both CR and BRC factors likely relate to how the individual copes with TBI over the lifespan. These factors may be particularly relevant to the relationship of developing dementia in the individual who has sustained a TBI earlier in life.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bigler, E. D., & Stern, Y. (2015). Traumatic brain injury and reserve. Handbook of clinical neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-63521-1.00043-1
Vancouver
Bigler ED, Stern Y. Traumatic brain injury and reserve. Handbook of clinical neurology. 2015. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-63521-1.00043-1. PMID: 25701915.
BibTeX
@article{bigler2015-25701915,
author = {Bigler, Erin D and Stern, Yaakov},
title = {{Traumatic brain injury and reserve}},
journal = {Handbook of clinical neurology},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1016/b978-0-444-63521-1.00043-1},
pmid = {25701915},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-63521-1.00043-1}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The CR model suggests the brain actively attempts to cope with brain damage by using pre-existing cognitive processing approaches or by enlisting compensatory approaches.
- Standard proxies for CR include education and IQ although this has expanded to include literacy, occupational attainment, engagement in leisure activities, and the integrity of social networks.
- Most research on BRC and CR has taken place in aging and degenerative disease but these concepts likely apply to the effects of TBI, especially with regards to recovery.
- Since high rates of TBI occur in those under age 35, both CR and BRC factors likely relate to how the individual copes with TBI over the lifespan.
- These factors may be particularly relevant to the relationship of developing dementia in the individual who has sustained a TBI earlier in life.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Handbook of clinical neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25701915) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 21 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.