MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061011912 · doi:10.1097/mrr.0b013e32832e6b4b

Early neuropsychological tests as correlates of productivity 1 year after traumatic brain injury: a preliminary matched case–control study

2010· article· en· W2061011912 on OpenAlexaff
Won Hyung A. Ryu, Nora Cullen, Mark Bayley

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Rehabilitation Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyTraumatic brain injuryAudiologyFunctional Independence MeasureNeuropsychological testPsychologyPoison controlRehabilitationVerbal learningPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryMedicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the relative strength of five neuropsychological tests in correlating with productivity 1 year after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Six moderate-to-severe TBI patients who returned to work at 1-year post-injury were matched with six controls who were unemployed after 1 year based on age, severity of injury, and Functional Independence Measure scores. Five neuropsychological tests were administered to patients during inpatient rehabilitation. Two of the five tests (Symbol Digit and Block Design) discriminated TBI patients based on employment outcome. Symbol Digit and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test were significantly correlated with follow-up Functional Independence Measure scores. Results indicate that neuropsychological measures of visual perception (Block Design), and attention and mental speed (Symbol Digit) may be useful predictors of employment productivity after TBI; whereas attention and mental speed, learning and memory ability (Symbol Digit and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test) may predict functional outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Rehabilitation ResearchSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207