MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058514474 · doi:10.1080/0269905031000070242

Relationships between olfactory discrimination and head injury severity

2003· article· en· W2058514474 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsRiverview HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmnesiaGlasgow Coma ScaleNeuropsychologyHead injuryPsychologyTraumatic brain injuryClosed head injuryComa (optics)MedicineHead traumaNeuropsychological testAudiologyPsychiatrySurgeryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between brain injury severity and scores on both an olfactory identification test and on many widely used neuropsychological tests in 367 patients with head injuries of varying levels of severity. It was hypothesized that valid olfactory test scores would correlate highly with injury severity because both the olfactory nerves and the primary olfactory cortices are especially vulnerable to damage in closed head injury. After removing data of doubtful validity from cases failing effort tests, olfactory test scores were related to Glasgow Coma Scale scores (GCS), post-traumatic amnesia and radiological abnormalities more strongly than any of the neuropsychological test scores. Based on the assumption that post-traumatic amnesia is caused by a different mechanism than loss of core consciousness, it was also predicted that there would be no cases with a GCS less than 13 and with no post-traumatic amnesia. As predicted, there were no cases in this group. The results support previous studies showing greater olfactory impairment with increased severity of head 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.069 · 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