Recovery from Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Previously Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective longitudinal study reports recovery from mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) across multiple domains in a carefully selected consecutive sample of 74 previously healthy adults. The patients with MTBI and 40 orthopedic controls (i.e., ankle injuries) completed assessments at 1, 6, and 12 months after injury. Outcome measures included cognition, post-concussion symptoms, depression, traumatic stress, quality of life, satisfaction with life, resilience, and return to work. Patients with MTBI reported more post-concussion symptoms and fatigue than the controls at the beginning of recovery, but by 6 months after injury, did not differ as a group from nonhead injury trauma controls on cognition, fatigue, or mental health, and by 12 months, their level of post-concussion symptoms and quality of life was similar to that of controls. Almost all (96%) patients with MTBI returned to work/normal activities (RTW) within the follow-up of 1 year. A subgroup of those with MTBIs and controls reported mild post-concussion-like symptoms at 1 year. A large percentage of the subgroup who had persistent symptoms had a modifiable psychological risk factor at 1 month (i.e., depression, traumatic stress, and/or low resilience), and at 6 months, they had greater post-concussion symptoms, fatigue, insomnia, traumatic stress, and depression, and worse quality of life. All of the control subjects who had mild post-concussion-like symptoms at 12 months also had a mental health problem (i.e., depression, traumatic stress, or both). This illustrates the importance of providing evidence-supported treatment and rehabilitation services early in the recovery period.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".