Post-concussion Symptom Reporting and the "Good-Old-Days" Bias Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
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
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of the "good-old-days" bias on symptom reporting following mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). The MTBI sample consisted of 86 patients (51.2% men) referred to a hospital-based concussion clinic in Vancouver, Canada. The majority of patients (83.7%) were evaluated within 3 months following their injury (M = 1.8 months, SD = 1.7, range = 0.2-8.0 months). Patients provided retrospective preinjury symptom ratings on the British Columbia Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory (BC-PSI). Ratings were compared with 177 healthy controls recruited from the community and a local university. MTBI retrospective ratings were significantly lower than the control group on the BC-PSI total score (p < .01, d = 0.27, small effect size) and 6 of the 13 individual items (all p < .05, d = 0.23-0.36, small to small-medium effect sizes). Patients who were currently in litigation reported more post-injury symptoms (p = .009, d = 0.63, medium-large effect size). However, litigation status was not associated with self-reported preinjury retrospective symptom ratings. Consistent with the "good-old-days" bias, patients with MTBI appear to misperceive their preinjury functioning as better than the average person.
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 | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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