MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1723291476 · doi:10.3109/02699052.2015.1015613

Executive functions profiles in traumatic brain injury adults: Implications for rehabilitation studies

2015· article· en· W1723291476 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolle Zimmermann, Natalie Pereira, Andressa Hermes-Pereira, Maila Rossato Holz, Yves Joanette, Róchele Paz Fonseca

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyExecutive functionsInjury preventionPoison controlMedicineCognitionPsychiatryNeuroscienceMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and characterize profiles of executive functions (EF) following traumatic brain injury (TBI). RESEARCH DESIGN: The sample was comprised of 84 adult outpatients with mild and moderate/severe TBI who were assessed by means of a battery of EF tasks. A Hierarchical Cluster analysis was performed with tasks Z-scores. Clusters were compared by means of ANOVA and Chi-square analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Three clusters were characterized by deficits in: (1) inhibition, flexibility and focused attention; (2) inhibition, flexibility, working memory and focused attention; and (3) no expressive executive deficits. Clusters did not differ in clinical or demographical variables. CONCLUSIONS: The first cluster replicated findings of previous studies on TBI EF profiles. IT is suggested that TBI rehabilitation studies of EF must select participants by their EF profile rather than for clinical or demographical variables.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207