No Effect of Mild Nonconcussive Injury on Neurocognitive Functioning in U.S. Army Soldiers Deployed to Iraq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: With neurocognitive testing being heavily relied on for concussion assessments in the U.S. Warfighter, there is a need to investigate the impact of nonconcussive injury on neurocognitive functioning. OBJECTIVES: To determine if a nonconcussive injury may have a negative effect on neurocognitive functioning in a deployment setting. METHODS: The current study compared scores on computerized and traditional neurocognitive tests of 166 Soldiers deployed to Iraq. Performance on a battery of tests was compared between a group of healthy deployed Soldiers (n = 102) versus a group of deployed Soldiers seeking outpatient care for mild injuries not involving the head or blast exposure (n = 62). RESULTS: The injured group's performance was not significantly lower on any of the measures administered compared to healthy Soldiers. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that there was no significant effect of nonconcussive injury on neurocognitive functioning. Findings lend support to feasibility of using neurocognitive tests to evaluate the effects of concussion in theater.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".