Aggression after paediatric traumatic brain injury: A theoretical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To examine aggression in adolescent males with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, matched-participants design. METHODS: Thirty-nine adolescents were examined, including a TBI group (n = 11) and a matched, uninjured comparison group (n = 28). Participants with TBI were injured an average of 8.3 years (SD = 4.2 years) prior. Participants and parents completed the Youth Self Report (YSR) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), both measures of global psychopathology. In addition, the theoretically-driven Reactive and Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) and the Form of Aggression Scale (FAS) were completed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: When compared using the YSR and CBCL, no group differences were detected. In contrast, using the self-report RPQ, participants with TBI reported more reactive and proactive aggression than non-injured peers. Using the FAS, participants with TBI reported engaging in aggression out of frustration and not to dominate or acquire objects. CONCLUSION: Aggressive behaviours are a long-term outcome after paediatric TBI. Measures of global psychopathology do not permit detailed examination of specific behaviour problems such as aggression, which may provide inaccurate data from which to derive incidence rates. In contrast, theoretically-driven measures can provide greater insight into post-TBI aggression with important treatment implications.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".