The Association between Pain-Related Variables, Emotional Factors, and Attentional Functioning following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how MTBI concomitants such as pain variables, depression, and anxiety were related to attentional functioning at different stages of recovery. Participants having sustained a MTBI who were in the earlier phase of recovery showed, compared to controls, slower reaction times and larger intra-individual variability on a Computerized Pictorial Stroop Task (CPST). They also reported more post-concussion symptoms, pain intensity and disability, whereas MTBI participants who were in the later phase of recovery presented a higher rate of post-concussive symptoms and somewhat higher pain intensity/disability. MTBI participants' scores on the cognitive items of the post-concussion symptoms scale were positively correlated with reaction times on the CPST, while pain intensity/disability levels were negatively correlated with standard attention measures. Results indicate that obtaining response times and intra-individual variability measures using tests such as the CPST represents an effective means for measuring recovery of attentional function, and that pain intensity/disability should be systematically assessed after a MTBI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".