Epidemiology of Postconcussion Syndrome in Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Much disagreement exists as to whether postconcussion syndrome (PCS) is attributable to brain injury or to other factors such as trauma alone, preexisting psychosocial problems, or medicolegal issues. We investigated the epidemiology and natural history of PCS symptoms in a large cohort of children with a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and compared them with children with an extracranial injury (ECI). METHODS: This investigation was a prospective, consecutive controlled-cohort study of 670 children who presented to a tertiary referral emergency department with mTBI and 197 children who presented with ECI. For all participants, data were collected by use of a telephone interview of a parent 7 to 10 days after injury. If a change from preinjury symptoms was reported by a parent, follow-up continued monthly until symptom resolution. Outcomes were measured by using the Post Concussion Symptom Inventory, Rivermead Postconcussion Symptom Questionnaire, Brief Symptom Inventory, and Family Assessment Device. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the mTBI and ECI groups in their survival curves for time to symptom resolution (log rank [Mantel-Cox] 11.15, P < .001). Three months after injury, 11% of the children in the mTBI group were symptomatic (13.7% of children older than 6 years) compared with 0.5% of the children in the ECI group. The prevalence of persistent symptoms at 1 year was 2.3% in the mTBI group and 0.01% in the ECI group. Family functioning and maternal adjustment did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among school-aged children with mTBI, 13.7% were symptomatic 3 months after injury. This finding could not be explained by trauma, family dysfunction, or maternal psychological adjustment. The results of this study provide clear support for the validity of the diagnosis of PCS in children.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".