Post-Concussion Symptom Reporting after Multiple Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between previous mild traumatic brain injury/injuries (MTBI) and recovery from a subsequent MTBI may be complex. The present study investigated three factors hypothesized to influence this relation: (1) the number of prior MTBIs, (2) the interval between MTBIs, and (3) the certainty level of previous MTBIs. The study design was retrospective cross-sectional. Participants (N=105) were evaluated at a concussion clinic on average 1 month after sustaining an MTBI, defined by World Health Organization diagnostic criteria. Approximately half the sample had at least one previous MTBI. Subgroups with 0, 1, or 2+ previous MTBIs did not differ in levels of current post-concussion symptom reporting on the British Columbia Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory. Time since the most recent previous MTBI was significantly associated with current post-concussion symptom reporting. This relation was best characterized as logarithmic; i.e., the impact of previous MTBI(s) lessens exponentially as time elapses to a subsequent MTBI. Defining previous MTBIs with a higher certainty level (i.e., probable versus possible) was not consistently associated with greater post-concussion symptom reporting. In conclusion, participants with multiple MTBIs did not report more post-concussion symptoms than those with no history of MTBI. Previous MTBI(s), however, were associated with increased symptom reporting from a subsequent MTBI to the extent they occurred closer in time. Having one or two previous remote MTBIs was not associated with worse outcome from subsequent MTBI in this sample.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".