MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137448657 · doi:10.1080/02699050010005995

Mathematical models of cognitive recovery

2001· article· en· W2137448657 on OpenAlexaff
Pauline P. Wong, Georges Monette, Neil I. Weiner

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleComa (optics)PsychologyCognitionTraumatic brain injuryIntelligence quotientGlasgow Coma ScaleRehabilitationClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Longitudinal psychological test results are used as dependent variables to explore the complex relationship between length of coma, time of testing on the recovery curve, and corresponding cognitive status after traumatic brain injury (TBI). A database containing 319 TBI patients with a broad spectrum of coma duration was used. Statistical analysis of mixed effects modelling was applied to longitudinal WAIS-R (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised) scores to construct two mathematical models (verbal IQ and performance IQ). The models predict the course of recovery (initial cognitive level post-coma, eventual recovery level, and level of cognitive functioning at any point on the recovery curve) when the duration of coma is known. Performance IQ was found to recover at a rate that is almost four times slower than verbal IQ. The results have important clinical rehabilitation implications. This statistical modelling technique also enables the medical researcher to investigate disease progression or recovery using structured assessments, which would normally be part of the routine medical monitoring.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207