A Longitudinal Study of Compensation-Seeking and Return to Work in a Treated Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In patients with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI), to assess: (1) changes in financial compensation-seeking status over time and (2) the relationship between compensation-seeking and return to work. DESIGN: Longitudinal evaluation of financial compensation-seeking status (i.e., at intake, 3 months postinjury, and 12 months postinjury) and relationship of such status to return to work. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation clinic. SUBJECTS: Ninety-seven patients with MTBI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Compensation-seeking status at 3 and 12 months and days taken to return to preinjury vocational activity. RESULTS: Those in litigation at intake generally continued to be in litigation at 3 and 12 months postinjury. Those seeking or receiving compensation via administrative means (e.g., sick pay or workers' compensation) at intake were generally not seeking or receiving compensation by 3 months or later, as was the case for most of those not seeking any financial compensation at intake. Patients seeking or receiving financial compensation via litigation and/or administrative means at intake took longer to return to work than did people who were not seeking or receiving compensation at intake. CONCLUSION: The present study design does not allow for determination of the reasons for the strong relationship between financial compensation-seeking soon post-MTBI and a slow return to work. However, the strength of the present findings indicates that the presence or absence of financial compensation-seeking soon post-MTBI should be routinely evaluated when return to work is an issue.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".