MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974787695 · doi:10.1080/02699050310001617406

Acute predictors of real-world outcomes following traumatic brain injury: a prospective study

2004· article· en· W1974787695 on OpenAlexaff
Deirdre Dawson, Brian Levine, Michael L. Schwartz, Donald T. Stuss

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallPsychosocialDistressMedicineAmnesiaQuality of life (healthcare)Prospective cohort studyPhysical therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the recovery of acute attention and memory improves the prediction of real-world outcomes over that provided by standard demographic and injury-severity measures. RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants were recruited consecutively at the time of injury and followed prospectively at 1 (time 1, or T1) and 4 years (time 2, or T2). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Measures of attention and memory and the Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test (GOAT) were administered to 94 participants daily from the time of injury until the criterion was met. Sixty-three per cent returned at T1 and 53% returned at T2. Outcomes were psychosocial distress, return to work and/or school, and quality of life. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Recovery of attention, memory and orientation did not significantly improve prediction of outcomes at T1, but did so at T2. At T2, recovery of free recall of three words over 24 h was a more sensitive predictor of psychosocial distress and return to productivity than the GOAT. CONCLUSIONS: Free recall of three words may be a useful acute clinical test to enhance prediction of long-term outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations51
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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