Attitudes toward the Elderly with CNS Trauma: A Cross-Sectional Study of Neuroscientists, Clinicians, and Allied-Health Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the potential impact of ageist attitudes on outcomes of central nervous system (CNS)-injured patients, little has been reported on this issue. Given this, we sought to conduct a questionnaire-based survey to assess the attitudes toward the elderly among basic and clinical neuroscientists, clinicians, and allied-health professionals whose research or medical practice is focused on neurotrauma. We also reviewed all abstracts presented in the National Neurotrauma Symposia from 1984 to 2007 and identified previous studies on the potential effects of age/aging on outcomes. The Kogan's Old People (KOP) scale was used to assess attitudes toward elderly individuals among all members of the National Neurotrauma Society (NNS). Of the 504 registered members, 137 subjects completed the survey that was re-mailed for non-respondents 4 weeks apart. There were no significant differences between respondents of the first and second mailings regarding their demographic and professional profiles or regarding their responses. These results support the validity of our findings in spite of the relatively low mail survey response rate (27.2%). Female gender was significantly associated with more positive attitudes toward old people compared to males. Clinicians showed significantly fewer negative attitudes toward old people in comparison with basic and clinical neuroscientists. Of the 4,194 abstracts reviewed, we identified only 44 studies (1.05%) that were explicitly focused on the effects of aging/old age on neurotrauma. In conclusion, our questionnaire-based survey, which appears to be representative of the population of interest, recognized significant differences in the attitudes toward old people among various professional groups and between male and female professionals. These findings may reflect a lack of knowledge and misconceptions regarding the impact of aging and old age on outcomes after CNS trauma. Further research on the impact of aging on outcomes after neurotrauma is required. Moreover, knowledge translation and mobilization appears required to positively influence attitudes among neuroscience research and clinical professionals regarding the issues of neurotrauma and the elderly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".