Executive Functions Deficits After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity of traditional neuropsychological tests and of a behavioral inventory of executive disorders in a large sample of patients with chronic severe traumatic brain injury. METHODS: A total of 112 patients were compared with 780 healthy controls from a larger database. The GREFEX battery included 7 widely used tests and the Behavioral Dysexecutive Syndrome Inventory (proxy rating). A previously described statistical methodology was used, controlling for age, education, and gender. Summary scores were computed and performance was dichotomized on the basis of 5th percentile cutoffs from controls' z scores. RESULTS: The frequency of cognitive impairment was high (55.4%) but lower than that of behavioral changes (81.5%). Double dissociations were observed between cognitive and behavioral assessments. Behavioral changes exhibited larger effect-sizes as compared with cognitive impairments. Logistic regression analysis showed that 3 cognitive tests (verbal fluency, Stroop reading, and Trail Making Test-B) and 3 behavior z scores (hypoactivity, anticipation, and hyperactivity) best discriminated patients from controls. CONCLUSION: Behavioral changes were more frequent and severe than cognitive deficits, at least as assessed with traditional testing. The present results also suggest that a shortened battery may provide a rapid screening method with reasonable sensitivity to detect deficits of executive functions in patients with severe traumatic brain injury.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".