Cognitive reserve in paediatric traumatic brain injury: Relationship with neuropsychological outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The current study examined the relationship between neuropsychological performance and cognitive reserve (as measured by word reading and vocabulary tasks) in children with TBI. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective records analysis of the neuropsychological test results of 52 participants with medically documented traumatic brain injuries, ranging from 6-16 years of age. MAIN OUTCOME AND RESULTS: Indicators of cognitive reserve were not correlated with the majority of well-recognized neuropsychological measures. CONCLUSIONS: Although past research has found that verbal ability is a valid indicator of CR in adult populations, the present study found evidence against the validity of this traditional reserve proxy when applied to the paediatric population. These findings suggest one of two conclusions: (1) measures used to indicate CR in adult populations (word reading, vocabulary) are not valid indicators of cognitive reserve in paediatric populations; and/or (2) the measures themselves are valid, yet there is simply not a significant relationship between cognitive reserve and short-term (i.e. less than 6 months) neuropsychological outcome in paediatric 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".