MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075073160 · doi:10.1093/arclin/15.7.643

Does Brief Loss of Consciousness Affect Cognitive Functioning After Mild Head Injury?

2000· article· en· W2075073160 on OpenAlexaff
Grant L. Iverson, Melanie Lovell, Simon S. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsRiverview HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyAffect (linguistics)Head injuryPsychologyClosed head injuryConsciousnessCognitionAudiologyNeuropsychological assessmentLevel of consciousnessClinical psychologyNeuropsychological testTraumatic brain injuryDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loss of consciousness often is considered an important variable when estimating head injury severity. The purpose of this study was to determine if brief loss of consciousness had any effect on the neuropsychological test performance of patients in acute recovery from an uncomplicated mild head injury (N = 195). Three groups of 65 patients were given a brief battery of neuropsychological tests within one week of sustaining a mild head injury. The groups, sorted on the basis of loss of consciousness (i.e., positive, negative, or equivocal), did not differ in age or education. There were no significant differences among the groups on any of the measures of attention, learning, memory, language, or executive functioning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations46
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207