MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011758650 · doi:10.1093/arclin/17.4.319

Patient complaints within 1 month of mild traumatic brain injury: A controlled study

2002· article· en· W2011758650 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

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryBonferroni correctionMedicineLogistic regressionInjury preventionPoison controlPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychologyPsychiatryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Symptom complaints of 118 patients with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI), within 1 month postinjury, were compared with those of 118 control participants without a MTBI. The MTBI and control subjects were group-matched on age, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and education status. Differences in symptom endorsements and severity ratings were found between the groups, with 16 of the 43 queried symptoms endorsed significantly more often (Bonferroni-corrected P<.00116) by MTBI patients than by controls. A total of 23 of the 43 symptoms were endorsed at a significantly higher severity by MTBI patients. The MTBI sample showed significantly higher within-group variability, with severity ranging from minimal to high. Perhaps because of this high variability, a logistic regression used to discriminate MTBI patients from controls was only moderately successful. This indicates that subjective complaints probably cannot be used, even soon after injury, to decisively distinguish individual MTBI patients from uninjured persons.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.233 · 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