Resilience Is Associated with Outcome from Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resilient individuals manifest adaptive behavior and are better able to recover from adversity. The association between resilience and outcome from mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is examined, and the reliability and validity of the Resilience Scale and its short form in mTBI research is evaluated. Patients with mTBI (n=74) and orthopedic controls (n=39) completed the Resilience Scale at one, six, and 12 months after injury. Additionally, self-reported post-concussion symptoms, fatigue, insomnia, pain, post-traumatic stress, and depression, as well as quality of life, were evaluated. The internal consistency of the Resilience Scale and the short form ranged from 0.91 to 0.93 for the mTBI group and from 0.86 to 0.95 for controls. The test-retest reliability ranged from 0.70 to 0.82. Patients with mTBI and moderate-to-high resilience reported significantly fewer post-concussion symptoms, less fatigue, insomnia, traumatic stress, and depressive symptoms, and better quality of life, than the patients with low resilience. No association between resilience and time to return to work was found. Resilience was associated with self-reported outcome from mTBI, and based on this preliminary study, can be reliably evaluated with Resilience Scale and its short form in those with mTBIs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".