MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015819556 · doi:10.2466/pms.2000.90.1.37

Subjective Improvement following Treatment with Carbamazepin (Tegretol) for a Subpopulation of Patients with Traumatic Brain Injuries

2000· article· en· W2015819556 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbamazepineDepression (economics)MedicinePediatricsDoseTraumatic brain injuryPsychiatryPersonality changesAnesthesiaEpilepsyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over a 3-yr period, 19 patients who had sustained brain traumas during motor vehicle incidents and who exhibited abnormal scores for a dichotic word-listening task and Roberts' Epileptic Spectrum Disorder Inventory more than one year after the injury were recommended for treatment with carbamazepine (Tegretol). The psychiatric profile of these patients, as defined by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, was similar to the profile of patients from other studies who had displayed more objective improvement following this treatment. Of the 14 patients 12 who followed the recommendation retrospectively reported that within a few weeks after treatment they experienced marked reductions in the incidence of sudden confusion and depression, increased attention and focus, and either elimination or attenuation of an aversive sensed presence. Such results suggest that many of the debilitating symptoms that persist for months to years after a traumatic brain injury may be electrical in nature rather than due to "psychological responses" and might be treatable by appropriate dosages of carbamazepine or other, e.g., Gabapentin (Neurontin) antiepileptic compounds.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207