MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057158529 · doi:10.1080/13854040701263655

Persistent Symptoms Associated with Factors Identified by the WHO Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2008· article· en· W2057158529 on OpenAlexafffund
Shauna Kashluba, Chris Paniak, Joseph E. Casey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Windsor
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryMedicineInjury preventionTraumatic injuryPsychologyInternal medicineClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryPoison controlSurgeryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examined the role of factors identified by the World Health Organization's Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury as being associated with poor outcome after mild traumatic brain injury. Employing symptom severity ratings at 3 months post-injury greater than "mild," subgroups of Higher-Severity (20%) and Lower-Severity (80%) participants were identified. Findings revealed that individuals who report greater symptom complaints at 3 months post-MTBI may be identifiable soon after injury on the basis of the magnitude and severity of early self-reported symptoms, pre-morbid psychological issues, and involvement in compensation-seeking. Injury severity factors did not differ between the groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations82
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Clinical NeuropsychologistSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207