Effectiveness of a Head Injury Program for Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a more coordinated, comprehensive head injury rehabilitation program provided at a children's trauma center yielded better outcomes than a less coordinated, less comprehensive program. DESIGN: Using a quasi-experimental design, 64 children with head injury admitted to the center and who received rehabilitation services in either 1995 or 1993 were evaluated by using the Functional Independence Measure for children (WeeFIM)/The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (e.g., primary outcome measure). Secondary outcomes included "psychosocial adjustment," "return to regular school," and "current problems related to the head injury." RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the groups with respect to mean WeeFIM/FIM scores after controlling for age and injury severity. The 1993 group had poorer scores on the withdrawal subscale of the psychosocial measure (P = 0.02), yet a smaller proportion of these children were enrolled in a special education class (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study serves as a model for a larger, definitive study of the effectiveness of rehabilitation for children with head injury. The trends suggest that more comprehensive care may lead to better outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".