Traumatic brain injury and cognitive impairment in men who are homeless
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To examine cognitive performance among a sample of men in a residential unit of an urban homeless shelter and to compare cognitive performance between those with and without a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: An exploratory, quantitative study of participants recruited through convenience sampling. Participants were screened for TBI using the Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire, and cognitive function using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). Data were analyzed to examine associations between TBI status and cognitive performance. Results: Thirty-four participants were recruited for the study: n = 12 with a positive and n = 22 with a negative screen for TBI. Both groups performed below norms in all cognitive domains measured by the RBANS. Those with a positive screen for TBI performed significantly worse on attention tasks than those with a negative screen for TBI (p = 0.026). RBANS scores were not associated with either mental health or substance abuse status. Conclusions: A history of TBI was associated with generally poorer cognitive performance in the study sample. An improved awareness of TBI and cognitive dysfunction among service providers and routine TBI screening could improve treatment and service delivery for this population. Implications for RehabilitationThe prevalence of traumatic brain injury among homeless populations is greater than that observed in the general population.Validated screening measures are available to screen for a history of traumatic brain injury among individuals who are homeless.A history of traumatic brain injury among adult men in a long-term residential unit of a homeless shelter was associated with poorer performance on the attention domain of a validated cognitive screening measure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".