Impact of post-traumatic hypersomnia on functional recovery of cognition and communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To assess aspects of cognition and communication, in response to the treatment of post-traumatic hypersomnia and mood disturbance. RESEARCH DESIGN: A single case study; pre-post intervention. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The participant was a male with severe TBI and cognitive-communication impairments, who subsequently developed sleep and mood disturbance and excessive daytime sleepiness. The Daily Cognitive-Communication and Sleep Profile (D-CCASP), Clinical Interview, Epworth and Stanford Sleepiness Scales and polysomnography assessed sleep and wakefulness. Cognitive-communication was also assessed by the D-CCASP. His sleep, wake and mood difficulties were pharmacologically managed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Baseline polysomnography indicated abnormal sleep. There was a clear positive relationship between quality of sleep, language processing, attention and memory, seen across the phases of the medication intervention (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive pharmacological management programme addressing the multi-factorial underlying aetiology was successful in improving sleep, arousal and mood. The D-CCASP was found to be clinically and statistically sensitive to reported changes in cognitive-communication function in relation to improvements in sleep and daytime arousal. These findings suggest that management of sleep/wake disturbances and mood post-traumatic brain injury can potentially facilitate improvements in cognitive-communication function which may, in turn, facilitate participation in rehabilitation and community integration.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".