Outcome

Long-Term Mortality of Patients With Head Injuries—A 10-Year Follow-up Study With Population Controls

by

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study with matched controls and longitudinal follow-up, Heinonen et al. from Tampere University Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital, and Harvard Medical School in the Neurosurgery Journal compared 10-year survival rates and causes of death between patients with traumatic head injuries treated at a university hospital and matched population controls. They aimed to identify factors associated with long-term mortality after TBI.

Patients with head injuries exhibited significantly reduced long-term survival compared to matched controls, even after excluding early mortality. However, patient-related characteristics (e.g., comorbidities, lifestyle factors) — more than injury severity itself — appeared to drive this increased mortality risk.

Notably, even patients without documented TBI (likely mild or undiagnosed) showed decreased survival, suggesting an under-recognized long-term impact of head injury across all severity levels 2).

In this population-based cohort study, the authors track 10-year mortality in over 1,900 patients with head injuries versus 9,600 matched controls. Unsurprisingly, trauma patients die more — especially from alcohol, accidents, and “patient characteristics.” The conclusion? It’s not the injury; it’s the person. This study doesn’t just underdeliver — it underthinks.

🧠 1. Conceptual Cowardice: “Patient Characteristics” as a Black Box

The study’s main conclusion — that patient-related factors, not injury severity, explain increased mortality — is not only reductive but evasive. The term “patient characteristics” serves as a statistical landfill for all the unmeasured, uncontrolled, and misunderstood variables: mental health, addiction, social deprivation, neurobehavioral sequelae… all dumped under one lazy label.

Rather than confront the neuropsychiatric aftermath of head trauma, the authors retreat behind correlational shields.

❝They died because of who they were, not what happened to them.❞ — That’s not science. That’s resignation.

Read more

Temporal trends and risk factors associated with stroke mortality among cancer patients

by

In a retrospective cohort study published in the Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, Ahmed et al. with Cleveland Clinic Cerebrovascular Center, West Virginia University participation 1) analyzed data from over 5.9 million patients diagnosed with a first primary cancer, based on the SEER database (2000–2020). The study aimed to quantify the risk of stroke-related death (SD) in cancer patients and to identify temporal trends and associated clinical and demographic risk factors. Stroke-related mortality (SD) among cancer patients has significantly declined over the past two decades across all cancer types and both sexes. However, older age, non-white race, male sex, and specific cancer types—notably nervous system, respiratory, and head and neck cancers—are associated with a higher risk of stroke death. Conversely, patients receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy had a lower risk of SD compared to those who received no treatment.

⚠️ Fatal Methodological Flaws

No Clinical Stroke Classification

The authors report on “stroke mortality” without differentiating ischemic vs. hemorrhagic strokes, nor providing stroke etiology or timing relative to cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment—rendering any mechanistic or preventative inference purely speculative.

Read more

Clinical outcome and deep learning imaging characteristics of patients treated by radio-chemotherapy for a “molecular” glioblastoma

by

In a retrospective observational cohort study, Zerbib et al., from the Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse Oncopole (IUCT-Oncopole), Claudius Regaud; INSERM UMR 1037, Cancer Research Center of Toulouse (CRCT); IRT Saint-Exupéry; Department of Engineering and Medical Physics, IUCT-Oncopole; Biostatistics & Health Data Science Unit, IUCT-Oncopole; Department of Neuroradiology, Hôpital Pierre-Paul Riquet, CHU Purpan; Department of Medical Oncology & Clinical Research Unit, IUCT-Oncopole; Pathology and Cytology Department, CHU Toulouse, IUCT-Oncopole; CerCo, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, CHU Purpan; Department of Neurosurgery, Hôpital Pierre-Paul Riquet, CHU Purpan; and University Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier, published in The Oncologist, sought to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of patients with molecular glioblastoma (molGB) and histological glioblastoma (histGB) treated with standard radio-chemotherapy. They also assessed whether artificial intelligence (AI) models could accurately distinguish molGB without contrast enhancement (CE) from low-grade gliomas (LGG) using MRI FLAIR imaging features.

Conclusion: Patients with molGB and histGB showed similar overall survival under standard treatment.

  • However, molGB without contrast enhancement (CE) demonstrated a significantly better median overall survival (31.2 vs 18 months).
  • AI models based on FLAIR MRI features were able to differentiate non-enhancing molGB from LGG, achieving a best-performing ROC AUC of 0.85.

→ These findings support the clinical relevance of non-enhancing molGB as a distinct subgroup with better prognosis and highlight the potential diagnostic utility of AI tools in radiologically ambiguous cases.

This study presents itself as cutting-edge — mixing radiotherapy outcomes with artificial intelligence — but beneath the polished language and deep learning jargon lies a set of predictable flaws:

Read more

Fever in the Neurocritically Ill Patient

by

In a review Kitagawa et al. from McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston published in Neurosurgical Clinics of North America to review fever etiology in neurocritically ill patients, assessed current pharmacologic and mechanical strategies for temperature control, and evaluated the existing evidence on whether these interventions improve clinical outcomes. The goal was to inform clinical decision-making in the neuro ICU setting. They concuded that fever is common in neuro ICU patients and is associated with worse outcomes. While several interventions effectively reduce body temperature, the literature remains inconclusive regarding their impact on prognosis. Management should be individualized, weighing the potential benefits against adverse effects. Further research is needed to clarify the clinical value of temperature control in this population 4)

Another polished yet pointless review, safely orbiting the surface of a real clinical problem without offering a single actionable insight. If you’ve spent time in a Neuro-ICU, you already know everything this article says. And if you haven’t — reading it won’t help you survive your next febrile crisis.

Read more

Factors affecting outcomes following burr hole drainage of chronic subdural hematoma: a single-center retrospective study

by

In a retrospective single-center cohort study, Zolnourian et al., from the University Hospital Southampton and Queen’s Hospital, Barking, Havering, & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom, published in the Journal of Neurosurgery, aimed to identify preoperative and perioperative factors that influence clinical outcomes, complications, and hospital length of stay in adult patients undergoing burr hole drainage for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), in order to improve patient selection and surgical decision-making.

They concluded that favorable short-term outcomes were primarily associated with nonmodifiable preoperative factors such as age under 80, preadmission independence, higher Glasgow Coma Scale motor score, lower ASA grade, and fewer regular medications. Surgical variables like laterality or the number of burr holes did not significantly impact outcomes. The use of subdural drains was linked to better discharge outcomes but not to recurrence or complications. These findings provide evidence-based criteria to guide surgical decision-making and patient counseling.

11)

📉 1. Redundancy Rebranded as Discovery

The headline findings — that younger, fitter patients with fewer medications and lower ASA scores fare better — are hardly groundbreaking. These are well-known prognostic factors repeated in countless prior studies. Yet the authors present them as if freshly uncovered, bypassing the fact that any intern with access to the NICE guidelines could have written this paper in a call room.

Read more