Neuropsychological Outcome from Blast <i>versus</i> Non-blast: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in U.S. Military Service Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the neuropsychological outcome from blast-related versus non-blast related mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). Participants were 56 U.S. military service members who sustained an MTBI, divided into two groups based on mechanism of injury: (a) non-blast related (Non-blast; n = 21), and (b) blast plus secondary blunt trauma (Blast Plus; n = 35). All participants had sustained their injury in theatre whilst deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. Patients had been seen for neuropsychological evaluation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on average 4.4 months (SD = 4.1) post-injury. Measures included 14 clinical scales from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and 12 common neurocognitive measures. For the PAI, there were no significant differences between groups on all scales (p > .05). However, medium effect sizes were found for the Depression (d = .49) and Stress (d = .47) scales (i.e., Blast Plus > Non-blast). On the neurocognitive measures, after controlling for the influence of psychological distress (i.e., Depression, Stress), there were no differences between the Non-blast and Blast Plus groups on all measures. These findings provide little evidence to suggest that blast exposure plus secondary blunt trauma results in worse cognitive or psychological recovery than blunt trauma alone. (JINS, 2012, 18, 595-605).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".