MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141773888 · doi:10.1080/02699050801938983

Deficits in complex visual information processing after mild TBI: Electrophysiological markers and vocational outcome prognosis

2008· article· en· W2141773888 on OpenAlexafffund
J.M. Lachapelle, Julie Bolduc-Teasdale, Alain Ptito, Michelle McKerral

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyTraumatic brain injuryOddball paradigmElectrophysiologyElectroencephalographyAudiologyEvent-related potentialLatency (audio)Physical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate low-level to complex information processing using visual electrophysiology and to examine the latter's prognostic value in regards to vocational outcome in persons having sustained a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS: Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to pattern-reversal, simple motion, texture segregation and cognitive oddball paradigms from 17 participants with symptomatic mTBI at onset of specialized clinical intervention and from 15 normal controls. The relationship between abnormal electrophysiology and post-intervention return to work status was also examined. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Participants with mTBI showed a statistically significant (p<0.05) amplitude reduction for cognitive ERPs and delayed latencies for texture (p<0.05) and cognitive paradigms (p<0.005) compared to controls. Furthermore, participants with mTBI presenting texture or cognitive ERP latency delays upon admission were at significantly (p<0.01) greater risk of negative vocational outcome than mTBI participants with normal electrophysiology. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that individuals with symptomatic mTBI can present selective deficits in complex visual information processing that could interfere with vocational outcome. ERP paradigms such as those employed in this study thus show potential for evaluating outcome prognosis and merit further study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations70
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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