MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017760648 · doi:10.1080/13854046.2010.516021

Are Cognitive Outcome and Recovery Different in Civilian Penetrating Versus Non-Penetrating Brain Injuries?

2010· article· en· W2017760648 on OpenAlexaff
Shelley Ylioja, Robin A. Hanks, Anne Baird, Scott R. Millis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryNeuropsychologyMedicineRehabilitationCognitionPenetrating traumaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study sought to determine whether cognitive outcome and course of recovery in civilian penetrating brain injury due to gunshot can be distinguished from that of non-penetrating brain injury due to motor vehicle accident. Matched survivors of penetrating and non-penetrating brain injury were assessed with a brief neuropsychological test battery at inpatient rehabilitation, 1 year post-injury, and 2 years post-injury. The traumatic brain injury groups were found to have patterns of performance marked by reliably distinct differences in isolated areas, with different cognitive predictors of brain injury type present in early versus later recovery. The degree of recovery over the first 2 years appeared to be quite similar for penetrating and non-penetrating injuries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Clinical NeuropsychologistSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207