Absence of Quantitative Improvement in Neuropsychological Profiles in Patients Who Exhibit Moderate Brain Impairment: Comparisons of Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data (1 through 4 Years Post-Injury)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 127 adult patients who had sustained an impact of significant mechanical energy to their skulls during motor vehicle incidents were given thorough neuropsychological, cognitive and personality assessments between 0.5 years and 4 years after the event. Cross-sectional analysis indicated no statistically significant objective changes in patients as a function of yearly intervals. However there was strong evidence of significant deterioration of neuropsychological proficiency and efficiency between 0.3 to 1.0 years after the injury. A subset (n = 20) of patients who displayed moderately severe neuropsychological impairment when assessed about 1 year after the injury showed no statistically significant changes when reassessed about 1.5 years later (2.5 years after the brain trauma). These results challenge the traditional concept of “recovery” following a traumatic brain injury and indicate that insidious processes that adversely affect neurocognitive capacity may emerge 0.5 years after the trauma. Post-hoc analysis indicated that the occurrence of unconsciousness or its duration at the time of the injury minimally affected the magnitude of subsequent indices of neuropsychological impairment but influenced the incidence of electroencephalographic theta activity during the years following the injury.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".