The neurological outcome of non-accidental head injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The literature regarding the outcome of non-accidental head injury (NAHI) is scarce and lacks specific detail even though it is generally considered to be poor. The purpose of this study is to review the literature to date and report the neurological outcome of these children in detail. METHODS: A cross-sectional and prospective study of children admitted to hospital with NAHI in Scotland. RESULTS: Twenty-five children were enrolled and 68% of children were neurologically abnormal at an average follow-up of 59 months. A wide range of abnormalities and outcomes was seen. Speech and language difficulties were present in 64% including autistic spectrum disorder. Cranial nerve abnormalities were present in 20%. Visual deficits and epilepsy compounded learning difficulties in 25% of survivors. Consent for follow-up was more likely to be obtained where the perpetrator was known. CONCLUSIONS: The spectrum and degree of severity of neurological abnormalities in survivors of NAHI is extremely variable, with the majority of these children being moderate or severely abnormal. These children require the support of a multi-disciplinary team in the community. Further study regarding the process of follow-up, where complex medicolegal issues exist, are needed in order to facilitate maximum neurological development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".