4.5 Review

Translational neuroimaging in mild traumatic brain injury

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
Volume 100, Issue 5, Pages 1201-1217

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24840

Keywords

animal models; brain injury; magnetic resonance imaging; neuroimaging; rodents; translational medicine

Categories

Funding

  1. European Research Council [804326]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01NS100952]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [804326] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are common, with the majority being classified as mild TBI (mTBI) where symptoms may resolve within days to weeks or become chronic. Advanced neuroimaging holds potential to characterize brain abnormalities post-mTBI, but translational studies are needed for proper interpretation of findings.
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are common with an estimated 27.1 million cases per year. Approximately 80% of TBIs are categorized as mild TBI (mTBI) based on initial symptom presentation. While in most individuals, symptoms resolve within days to weeks, in some, symptoms become chronic. Advanced neuroimaging has the potential to characterize brain morphometric, microstructural, biochemical, and metabolic abnormalities following mTBI. However, translational studies are needed for the interpretation of neuroimaging findings in humans with respect to the underlying pathophysiological processes, and, ultimately, for developing novel and more targeted treatment options. In this review, we introduce the most commonly used animal models for the study of mTBI. We then summarize the neuroimaging findings in humans and animals after mTBI and, wherever applicable, the translational aspects of studies available today. Finally, we highlight the importance of translational approaches and outline future perspectives in the field of translational neuroimaging in mTBI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available