MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Associated with Perceived Quality of Life Many Years After Traumatic Brain Injury

2001· article· en· W2000870178 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah Steadman-Pare, Angela Colantonio, Graham Ratcliff, Susan K. Chase, Lee Vernich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSouth Bruce Grey Health Centre
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryQuality of life (healthcare)RehabilitationMedicineBayesian multivariate linear regressionCohortMental healthRetrospective cohort studyPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatryRegression analysisInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To explore factors associated with perceived quality of life (QOL) 8 to 24 years after traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy-five individuals who sustained moderate to severe TBI who were discharged from a rehabilitation hospital participated in this study. We interviewed consenting participants up to 24 years after injury. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-rated Quality of Life Scale. RESULTS: Multivariate linear regression analyses revealed that perceived mental health, self-rated health, gender (women rating QOL higher), participation in work and leisure, and the availability of emotional support were significantly associated with QOL (P <.05). CONCLUSION: The importance of designing ongoing support programs to further reintegrate TBI survivors several years after injury is discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations235
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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