MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035184401 · doi:10.1097/htr.0b013e31823b2385

Long-Term Functional Outcome of Older Adults After a Traumatic Brain Injury

2012· article· en· W2035184401 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexandra Lecours, Marie‐Josée Sirois, Marie‐Christine Ouellet, K. Boivin, Jean-François Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryTerm (time)Outcome (game theory)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyNeuroscienceGerontologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with long-term independence in mobility and self-care activities of daily living of older adults after traumatic brain injury (TBI). PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-six TBI survivors 55 years or older were assessed 2 to 4 years postinjury (mean of 3.2 years). SETTING: Level I or level II trauma centers in Quebec, Canada. MAIN MEASURES: Personal, injury-related, and environmental factors were gathered from hospital records or by telephone interview; a telephone version of the Functional Independence Measure motor scale was collapsed to 4 levels. ANALYSIS: Logistic regression analyses identified factors associated with independence in mobility and self-care. RESULTS: The strongest and most consistent factors associated with independence in mobility and self-care were fewer comorbid conditions, no difficulty of access to home modification services and home support services, male gender, younger age at time of injury, and shorter acute care length of stay. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with long-term functional outcome should be considered in the development of practice guidelines for rehabilitation of older adults who sustained a 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Head Trauma RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207