Cognitive‐communication performance following mild traumatic brain injury: Influence of sex, age, education, site of lesion and bilingualism
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although previous research studies have defined several prognostic factors that affect cognitive-communication performance in patients with all traumatic brain injury (TBI) severity, little is known about what variables are associated with cognitive-communication impairment in complicated mild TBI (mTBI) specifically. AIMS: To determine which demographic and trauma-related factors are associated with cognitive-communication performance in the early recovery phase of acute care following a complicated mTBI. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Demographic and accident-related data as well as the scores on cognitive-communication skill measures in the areas of auditory comprehension (complex ideational material subtest of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination), verbal reasoning (verbal absurdities subtest of the Detroit Test of Learning Aptitude), confrontation naming (short form of the Boston Naming Test), verbal fluency (semantic category and letter category naming), and conversational discourse (conversational checklist of the Protocole Montréal d'évaluation de la communication) were retrospectively collected from the medical records of 128 patients with complicated mTBI admitted to a tertiary care trauma hospital. Multiple linear regressions analyses were carried out on the variables sex, age, education level, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, lesion site and bilingualism. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Females performed better than males on letter-category naming, while those more advanced in age performed worse on most cognitive-communication measures. Patients with higher education achieved better confrontation and letter-category naming, whereas reading comprehension results were worse with a lower GCS score. Bilingual individuals presented more difficulty in conversational discourse skills than those who spoke only one language. In terms of site of lesion, the presence of a right frontal injury was associated with worse auditory and reading comprehension and an occipital lesion was related to worse confrontation naming. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Cognitive-communication skills should be evaluated early in all patients with complicated mTBI, but especially in those who are advanced in age, those with fewer years of education and those who present with lower GCS scores, in order to determine rehabilitation needs. The findings of this study will allow acute care clinicians to better understand how various demographic and injury-related factors affect cognitive-communication skills after complicated mTBI and to better nuance the interpretation of their evaluation results in order to improve clinical care. Further study is required regarding the influence of lesion location, sex and bilingualism following complicated mTBI. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject In early acute recovery studies including all severity of TBI, cognitive-communication performance was poorer in individuals with more advanced age, those with fewer years of education and with more severe TBI. It is not yet known which demographic and injury-related variables predict cognitive-communication performance after a complicated mTBI specifically. What this paper adds to existing knowledge We confirmed that age, level of education and TBI severity, as measured with the GCS score, were associated with some areas of cognitive-communication performance for a group of patients in the acute stage of recovery from a complicated mTBI. We also identified that sex, bilingualism and site of lesion were new variables that show an influence on aspects of cognitive-communication skills in this group of patients. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The findings of this study on prognostic factors in the case of complicated mTBI will help acute care clinicians to better understand evaluation results knowing the variables that can influence cognitive-communication performance and to nuance the interpretation of these results with the goal of determining rehabilitation needs and enhancing clinical care.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».