Interview Versus Questionnaire Symptom Reporting in People With the Postconcussion Syndrome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare spontaneous, interview-based, postconcussion symptom reporting to endorsement of symptoms on a standardized questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one patients referred to a concussion clinic following mild traumatic brain injury. PROCEDURE: Patients recalled their current symptoms and problems via open-ended interview and then completed a structured postconcussion checklist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Open-ended interview and the British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory (BC-PSI). RESULTS: On average, patients endorsed 3.3 symptoms (SD = 1.9) during open-ended interview and 9.1 symptoms (SD = 3.2) on the BC-PSI (P < .001). Approximately 44% endorsed 4 or more symptoms during interview compared with 92% on the BC-PSI. The percentage of patients endorsing items on the BC-PSI compared with interview was significantly greater on all 13 items. It was common for patients to endorse symptoms as moderate-severe on the BC-PSI, despite not spontaneously reporting those symptoms during the interview. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians need to be cautious when interpreting questionnaires and be aware of the possibility of nonspecific symptom endorsement, symptom overendorsement, symptom expectations influencing symptom endorsement, and the nocebo effect.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it