Sex in the city: sexual behaviour, societal change, and STDs in Saigon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent case reports have described athletes previously exposed to repetitive head trauma while participating in contact sports who later in life developed mood disorders, headaches, cognitive difficulties, suicidal ideation, difficulties with speech, and aggressive behavior. Postmortem discoveries show that some of these athletes have pathologic findings that are collectively termed chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Current hypotheses suggest that concussions or perhaps blows to the head that do not cause the signs and symptoms necessary for making the diagnosis of concussion, so-called subconcussive blows, cause both the clinical and pathologic findings. There are, however, some athletes who participate in contact sports who do not develop the findings ascribed to CTE. Furthermore, there are people who have headaches, mood disorders, cognitive difficulties, suicidal ideation, and other clinical problems who have neither been exposed to repeated head trauma nor possessed the pathologic postmortem findings of those currently diagnosed with CTE. The current lack of prospective data and properly designed case-control studies limits the current understanding of CTE, leading to debate about the causes of the neuropathologic findings and the clinical observations. Given the potential for referral and recall bias in available studies, it remains unclear whether or not the pathologic findings made postmortem cause the presumed neurobehavioral sequela and whether the presumed risk factors, such as sports activity, cerebral concussions, and subconcussive blows, are solely causative of the clinical signs and symptoms. This article discusses the current evidence and the associated limitations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".