Cognitive correlates with functional outcomes after anoxic brain injury: A case-controlled comparison with traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation in adults who have sustained an anoxic brain injury (AnBI). Secondly, to identify areas of cognition that predict functional outcomes at discharge. DESIGN: Retrospective, matched case-controlled study. METHODS: Ten patients with moderate-to-severe AnBI and 10 patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), treated in an inpatient neurorehabilitation programme, were matched on age, acute care length of stay and admission Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Functional outcome was assessed using the FIM and Disability Rating Scale (DRS). RESULTS: Patients with AnBI performed worse on all measures of functional outcome relative to patients with TBI. Patients with AnBI achieved significantly lower FIM motor and cognitive gain compared with patients with TBI (11.5, SD 13.6 vs. 31.0, SD 19.7 and 2.4, SD 3.9 vs. 7.5, SD 4.2, respectively (p < 0.02)). DRS data showed similar trends of functional improvement between the groups. Several neuropsychometric tests correlated with functional outcome (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AnBI had worse functional outcomes following rehabilitation than patients with TBI, confirming the results of previous reports. Poor cognitive function predicted poor functional outcomes on the FIM and somewhat on the DRS. Research is needed to assess why these differences occur and to improve or develop new effective rehabilitation treatments for AnBI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".