MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996776896 · doi:10.1097/htr.0b013e3181d6f9bd

Clinical and Methodological Challenges With Assessing Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the Military

2010· article· en· W1996776896 on OpenAlexaff
Grant L. Iverson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A vast majority of traumatic brain injuries sustained by military personnel are mild in severity. In 2008, the United States Department of Defense officially mandated a screening program designed to identify deployment-related mild traumatic brain injuries and associated residual symptoms. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews this screening program, illustrates the clinical and methodological challenges associated with screening, and makes recommendations for improving the process of screening for mild traumatic brain injuries and related symptoms.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Head Trauma RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207