Neuroimaging and social behavior in children after traumatic brain injury: Findings from the Social Outcomes of Brain Injury in Kids (SOBIK) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuroimaging studies identified either focal and/or non-specific frontotemporolimbic damage resulting from mild-complicated to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) in a subset of 12 children 8-12 years of age who were part of the Social Outcomes of Brain Injury in Kids (SOBIK) study. The influence of identifiable damage on social behavior was examined. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging was obtained on average 2.5 years post injury wherein cases with distinct abnormalities were selected. Various direct, performance-based measures of cognitive-social-emotional functioning were obtained along with data regarding peer relations and friendships in the classroom. RESULTS: Overall, children with TBI were impaired on tasks of social-emotional processing compared to children with orthopedic injury (OI). Ten of the 12 children with TBI had multiple areas of impaired social-emotional functioning in comparison to OI controls. With regards to friendships, four of the nine children with TBI who had classroom data had no mutual friends, four also received low peer acceptance ratings, and two were perceived by peers as having high levels of rejection/victimization in the classroom. CONCLUSIONS: Children with frontotemporolimbic or diffuse damage demonstrated variable social outcomes from their TBI. Results are discussed in terms of the heterogeneity of TBI-related abnormalities and their relationship to social behavior.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".