INCOG Guidelines for Cognitive Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury results in complex cognitive sequelae. However, clinicians have difficulty implementing the available evidence. An international group of researchers and clinicians (known as INCOG) convened to develop clinical practice guidelines for cognitive rehabilitation posttraumatic brain injury. METHODS: The Guidelines Adaptation and Development cycle was used to derive the recommendations. Previously published cognitive rehabilitation recommendations were identified and tabulated. An expert panel met to select appropriate recommendations. Afterward, the team enhanced the recommendations by reviewing available literature. To address shortfalls of previous guidelines, the team developed decision algorithms incorporating the recommendations based on inclusion and exclusion criteria of published trials and expert opinion. The team then prioritized the recommendations for implementation and developed audit criteria to evaluate adherence to best practice. RESULTS: The team recommends that individuals have detailed assessments of cognition after resolution of posttraumatic amnesia. Cognitive assessment and rehabilitation should be tailored to the patient's neuropsychological profile, premorbid cognitive characteristics, and goals for life activities and participation. Clinical algorithms and audit tools to evaluate current practice are provided. CONCLUSION: Cognitive rehabilitation should be offered to select individuals with traumatic brain injury. These guidelines provide assistance to clinicians who want to provide evidence-based care.
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 | 0.026 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".