Patient complaints within 1 month of mild traumatic brain injury: A controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".