Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the contribution of executive dysfunctions to mnemonic problems in adults with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). DESIGN: Prospective quasiexperimental between-groups design. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-nine persons with MTBI were compared to 90 control group participants matched for gender, age, and education. SETTING: Two Canadian brain injury rehabilitation programs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: California Verbal Learning Test. RESULTS: Participants with MTBI showed a significant deficit in free recall on the California Verbal Learning Test but performed similarly to the comparison group on the recognition task. Furthermore, the participants with MTBI were less likely to use semantic clustering as a memorizing strategy and made more intrusion errors and false-positive errors on the recognition task. CONCLUSIONS: While the scores for the participants with MTBI are only slightly lower than the norm, they demonstrate that MTBI has a negative effect on mnemonic performance. The results are explained in terms of a deficit in registration/retrieval processes rather than a malfunction of the storage processes. This supports the initial hypothesis that executive dysfunctions are detrimental to the quality of mnemonic functions in patients with MTBI.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".