MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2604426785 · doi:10.1093/pch/18.3.141

Head injury became personal for me: A health professional’s perspective

2013· article· en· W2604426785 sur OpenAlexaffabout

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPerspective (graphical)Head (geology)Head injuryPersonal injuryMedicineNursingPsychologyPsychiatryArtPolitical scienceVisual arts

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Head injury became personal for me in February 2007, when, during an afternoon of snowboarding at Sunshine Village in Banff National Park (Alberta), I was found crumpled on the slope with the occipital region of my helmet shattered. The accident was unwitnessed. Apparently I was conscious, although clearly confused, and was eventually seen at the Foothills Hospital in Calgary (Alberta). The most striking initial symptom was amnesia; I lost nearly 30 h of memory, starting from the evening before the accident until some 10 h after the injury. My emotions were, in retrospect, markedly abnormal; I remember an eager, academic interest in what my scan looked like, with, paradoxically, no fear or concern about the obvious implications. This emotional incongruity persisted for several weeks. I was quite happy at home watching television with a cat on my chest, while those around me quietly agonized over my prognosis. This despite being unable to stand without the room rocking like a boat in one-metre-high waves, being disorganized to the point where cooking supper was beyond me and being profoundly and dreadfully fatigued. My head pain was moderate, but the neck pain was dramatic enough that I eventually became quite concerned that a cervical spine injury had been missed. Ibuprofen was moderately effective, but it was sleep that truly improved my pain and brought back some measure of concentration and executive capacity. I did not ever experience nausea or emesis. I was fortunate to be assessed two weeks after the injury, and only then at the urging of others, by a colleague who was a neurosurgeon with expertise in minor traumatic brain injury. Any thoughts of returning to work or exercise were quickly squashed, and “complete cognitive and physical rest” was prescribed. At this point my dizziness was improving and my thoughts were more organized, but my planning, judgement and organizational abilities remained tremendously limited. Recovery was not linear. Rather, there were prolonged periods of equilibrium, followed by sudden state changes over a 24 h or 48 h period. I can recall suddenly realizing one afternoon that I might not work again, and with this realization the ‘happy’ period of my concussion was over. It was several weeks before I was able to concentrate on academic work, and four months before I began to cautiously try my hand at patient care again. I was not fully back at work until the middle of August, more than six months after my injury. Even then, I was subject to fatigue and high cognitive loads, or sudden movements could reproduce dizziness and migrainous headaches. Months later, academic presentations, which had previously been a personal strength, remained challenging, even embarrassing events. It was nearly a year before I returned to running. Critically, others were often as blind as I was to the true degree of my disability. Cocktail chatter, it would appear, does not require a lot of cognitive capacity. While my family was aware of my true level of functioning, my friends, neighbours and even medical colleagues were often fooled. Subsequently, I successfully returned to a full academic and patient care workload. A role as an advocate for concussion care and my research interest in decision support for concussion in children are perhaps the only ongoing consequences of my original injury.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Étude de cas · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,028
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,070

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0250,013
Communication savante0,0120,011
Science ouverte0,0020,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0150,029
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,052
Tête enseignante GPT0,413
Écart entre enseignants0,360 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeÉtude de cas
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child Health→Même sujetTraumatic Brain Injury Research→Travaux en français237 207→