Neuropsychological Outcome from Uncomplicated Mild, Complicated Mild, and Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury in US Military Personnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the neuropsychological outcome in military personnel following mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI). Participants were 83 service members divided into three injury severity groups: uncomplicated mild TBI (MTBI; n = 24), complicated MTBI (n = 17), and moderate TBI (n = 42). Participants were evaluated within 6 months following injury (73% within 3 months) using neurocognitive testing and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). There were no significant differences between the three groups on the majority of neurocognitive measures. Similarly, there were no significant differences between the three groups on the majority of PAI clinical scales (all p > .05), with the exception of two scales. The uncomplicated MTBI group had significantly higher scores on the Anxiety-Related Disorders and Aggression scales compared with the complicated MTBI group, but not the moderate TBI group. Overall, these results suggest that within the first 6 months post injury, there were few detectable differences in the neuropsychological outcome following uncomplicated MTBI, complicated MTBI, or moderate TBI in this military sample.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".