Perceived Cognitive Deficits, Emotional Distress and Disability following Whiplash Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the pattern of perceived cognitive deficits in patients with whiplash injury, to examine the relation between perceived cognitive deficits and disability, and to examine the determinants of perceived cognitive deficits in patients with whiplash injury. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 81 individuals participated in the study. There were 29 patients (13 men, 16 women) with a diagnosis of whiplash, grade I or II. Patients with work-related soft-tissue injuries (n=24) and nonclinical controls (n=28) were included as comparison groups. METHODS: Participants completed measures of perceived cognitive deficits, pain severity, depression, anxiety and pain-related disability. RESULTS: Both patient groups scored significantly higher than the nonpatient control group on the measure of perceived cognitive deficits, but did not differ significantly from each other. Perceptions of cognitive deficits were significantly correlated with pain-related disability. A hierarchical regression examining the relative contribution of anxiety, depression and pain showed that only anxiety and depression contributed significant unique variance to the prediction of perceived cognitive deficits. DISCUSSION: The potential benefits of focusing interventions on the management of anxiety and depression in the rehabilitation of patients with whiplash injuries are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".