MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inhibitory control after traumatic brain injury in children

2011· article· en· W2014158167 on OpenAlexaff
Katia J. Sinopoli, Maureen Dennis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Developmental Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryInhibitory controlResponse inhibitionPsychologyNeuroscienceInhibitory postsynaptic potentialDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhibitory control describes a number of distinct processes. Effortless inhibition refers to acts of control that are automatic and reflexive. Effortful inhibition refers to voluntary, goal-directed acts of control such as response flexibility, interference control, cancellation inhibition, and restraint inhibition. Disruptions to a number of inhibitory control processes occur as a consequence of childhood traumatic brain injury (TBI). This paper reviews the current knowledge of inhibition deficits following childhood TBI, and includes an overview of the inhibition construct and a discussion of the specific deficits shown by children and adolescents with TBI and the factors that mediate the expression of these deficits, including injury-related variables and the expression of pre- and post-injury attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The review illustrates that inhibitory control processes differ in terms of measurement, assessment, and neurological underpinnings, and also that childhood TBI may selectively disrupt particular forms of inhibition.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Developmental NeuroscienceSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207