MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979935580 · doi:10.1080/17518420802055177

Intra-individual variability in recovery from paediatric acquired brain injury: Relationship to outcomes at 1 year

2008· article· en· W1979935580 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Levac, Carol DeMatteo, Steven Hanna, Laurie Wishart

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurorehabilitation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyProxy (statistics)Coping (psychology)Clinical psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between the amount of intra-individual variability in measures of abilities and participation throughout the first 8 months of recovery from ABI and outcome scores at 1 year. Greater amounts of intra-individual variability throughout recovery are hypothesized to predict better outcome scores at 1 year. RESEARCH DESIGN: This is a secondary data analysis of a longitudinal cohort study. METHODS: Eighty-seven children and youths were assessed with self and proxy report measures of child functioning, family functioning and environmental factors at regular intervals after ABI. Mixed-effects modelling was used to determine individual linear recovery trajectories. Intra-individual variability was defined as the intra-individual standard deviation of the residuals around the recovery line. RESULTS: Less intra-individual variability in recovery predicts better outcomes of physical health (Child Health Questionnaire), behavioural functioning (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire), family coping (Impact on Family Scale) and impact of environmental barriers (Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors). As amount of intra-individual variability increases, outcomes become poorer. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the existence of intra-individual variability in instrument scores over time in this sample and the impact of this variability on several outcomes at 1 year. Potential clinical and research implications 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 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)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurorehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207