Comparison of functional outcome following acute care in young, middle-aged and elderly patients with traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To compare functional physical and cognitive outcome of patients in three age groups with mild, moderate and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) at discharge from acute care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective database review. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Scores on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) and on the FIM instrument,1 discharge destination and length-of-stay (LOS) were gathered and compared for 2327 patients with TBI admitted to a level 1 trauma hospital from 1997-2003 divided into three age groups; 971 patients between 18-39 years, 672 between 40-59 years and 684 aged 60-99 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Relative to younger adults with similar TBI severity, elderly patients showed worse outcome on the GOSE and FIM instrument (physical and cognitive ratings) and longer LOS. No difference was observed between the young and middle-aged groups except for cognitive FIM ratings and LOS for severe TBI. A higher percentage of elderly patients went to in-patient rehabilitation, to long-term care facilities or died compared to young and middle-aged patients. A higher number of young and middle-aged patients were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: Further development of services in early rehabilitation as well as post-rehabilitation geared to the specific needs of the elderly patient with TBI is required as the population ages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".