MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149708641 · doi:10.1080/09638280400018338

Long-term survival following traumatic brain injury

2005· article· en· W2149708641 on OpenAlexaff
Graham Ratcliff, Angela Colantonio, Michael Escobar, Susan K. Chase, Lee Vernich

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineTraumatic brain injuryRehabilitationInjury preventionRetrospective cohort studyPoison controlHead injuryPopulationPoisson regressionCohort studyCohortPhysical therapyPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicineSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The study used a retrospective cohort design to establish long-term mortality rates and predictors of mortality for persons after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHOD: Consecutive records of persons with moderate to severe TBI who were discharged from a large rehabilitation hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the years 1974-1984, 1988 and 1989 were reviewed. RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-two eligible individuals were identified and mortality was ascertained up to 24 years post injury. One hundred and twenty-eight of these individuals were found to be deceased. Poisson regression analyses revealed at least a 2-fold increased risk for mortality compared to the general population. Pre-injury characteristics and levels of disability at discharge from in-patient rehabilitation were among the strongest predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: These data constitute evidence for premature death in the post-acute TBI population following a moderate to severe head injury and are discussed in relation to other research in the area.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations79
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207