MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076609744 · doi:10.1093/arclin/acv014

Profile Analyses of the Personality Assessment Inventory Following Military-Related Traumatic Brain Injury

2015· article· en· W2076609744 on OpenAlexaff
Jan E. Kennedy, Douglas B. Cooper, Matthew Reid, David F. Tate, R. T. Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDefense and Veterans Brain Injury CenterNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeHenry M. Jackson FoundationU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsDistressTraumatic brain injuryPersonalityPsychologyClinical psychologyRehabilitationPersonality Assessment InventoryService memberPsychiatryMilitary personnel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) profiles were examined in 160 U.S. service members (SMs) following mild-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Participants who sustained a mild TBI had significantly higher PAI scores than those with moderate-severe TBI on eight of the nine clinical scales examined. A two-step cluster analysis identified four PAI profiles, heuristically labeled "High Distress", "Moderate Distress", "Somatic Distress," and "No Distress". Postconcussive and posttraumatic stress symptom severity was highest for the High Distress group, followed by the Somatic and Moderate Distress groups, and the No Distress group. Profile groups differed in age, ethnicity, rank, and TBI severity. Findings indicate that meaningful patterns of behavioral and personality characteristics can be detected in active duty military SMs following TBI, which may prove useful in selecting the most efficacious rehabilitation strategies.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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