MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032937648 · doi:10.1080/02699050500149882

Prediction of the level of cognitive functional independence in acute care following traumatic brain injury

2005· article· en· W2032937648 on OpenAlexaff
Élaine de Guise, Joanne LeBlanc, Mitra Feyz, Julie Lamoureux

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlasgow Coma ScaleTraumatic brain injuryMedicineFunctional Independence MeasureAmnesiaCognitionAcute carePhysical therapyComa (optics)Psychological interventionGlasgow Outcome ScalePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationSurgeryHealth carePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine a predictive model for cognitive functional outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at discharge from acute care. METHODS AND PROCEDURE: Three hundred and thirty-five patients were included in this analysis. Variables considered were age, education, initial score on the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA), cerebral imaging results and the need for neurosurgical intervention. EXPERIMENTAL INTERVENTIONS: Functional Independence Measure (FIM). MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Results of this analysis indicated better cognitive FIM at discharge from acute care settings for patients with TBI when PTA was less than 24 hours, when level of education was higher, when no parietal lesion was identified, when no neurosurgical intervention was required, for patients with TBI who were younger and who presented with a higher GCS score upon admission. CONCLUSIONS: This model will help to plan resource allocation for treatment and discharge planning within the first weeks following TBI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations58
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207