Mild traumatic brain injury meta-analyses can obscure individual differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Several published meta-analyses indicate that mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) is associated with a favourable course of recovery over a period of days-to-weeks, with no indication of permanent impairment on neuropsychological testing by 3 months post-injury in group studies. These meta-analyses provide important but not definitive information relating to outcome from MTBI in individual patients. The purpose of this paper was to illustrate that a sub-group of patients with residual cognitive deficits could exist, yet be obscured using group inferential statistics. MAIN OUTCOME AND RESULTS: A sample of 30 concussed amateur athletes and a hypothetical sample of 30 adults who had sustained MTBIs were used to illustrate these statistical issues. In both groups, a minority of subjects with residual cognitive deficits were not identified using group statistics. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to appreciate that MTBI meta-analyses represent an aggregation of effect sizes derived from multiple groups across multiple studies. Therefore, this methodology could, theoretically, obscure small sub-group or individual effects. Implications for interpreting meta-analyses are discussed.
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 | 0.194 | 0.366 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".