MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Current Status of Electrophysiologic Procedures for the Assessment of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2001· review· en· W1996981630 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyMagnetoencephalographyTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyCognitionNeuroscienceMedicineAudiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DESIGN: This review examines studies that used spontaneous electroencephalography (EEG), evoked potentials (EP), event-related potentials (ERP), and magnetoencephalography (MEG) to detect brain dysfunction in mild traumatic brain injured (MTBI) subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions are offered: (1) standard clinical EEG is not useful; however, newer analytical procedures may be proven valuable; (2) consistent with current theory of MTBI, cognitive ERPs seem to be more sensitive to injury than EPs; (3) development of an assessment battery that may include EEG, EPs, ERPs, and neuropsychologic testing is advocated.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.344 · 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