MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Balance Findings in a Child before and after a Mild Head Injury

2001· article· en· W2079797612 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Gagnon, Debbie Friedman, Bonnie Swaine, Robert Forget

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineTest (biology)Physical therapyPopulationHead injuryBalance problemsInjury preventionPoison controlPsychologySurgeryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This case study reviews the preinjury and postinjury balance performance of an 11-year-old child who sustained a mild head injury. DESIGN: A prospective design was used to document balance 5 days before injury and 1, 4, and 12 weeks after injury. OUTCOME MEASURES: The assessments used were the balance subtest of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, the Pediatric Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction for Balance, and the Postural Stress Test. RESULTS: One week after the trauma, balance deficits were observed in the three tests. The deficits improved 4 weeks after the injury, and performance remained stable over the following 2 months for two of the evaluations except for the Postural Stress Test performance, which failed to improve in the 3-month period after trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The good recovery of balance skills observed over the first month after injury seems to validate the current activity restrictions imposed on children after a mild head injury. However, the persistence of poor performance in the area of reactions to external perturbations indicates that some deficits may persist beyond what is expected with this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Head Trauma RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207