MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343391882 · doi:10.3109/02699052.2016.1147077

Prospection and its relationship to instrumental activities of daily living in patients with mild traumatic brain injury with cognitive impairment

2016· article· en· W2343391882 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantine K. Zakzanis, Kyrsten M. Grimes, Sarah Uzzaman, Mark A. Schmuckler

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProspectionContext (archaeology)Activities of daily livingCognitionPsychologyTraumatic brain injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Prospection is the ability to plan ahead by creating a series of intentions and sequential steps to achieve a particular goal. The current study examined whether prospection was compromised in patients who had sustained a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and who claimed to be disabled because of their chronic cognitive impairment, as operationalized by an inability to achieve goals (e.g. return to work) well after their expected recovery. METHOD: This study employed the Tower of London (TOL) to measure prospection and compared two groups of patients who sustained a mTBI who both presented with cognitive impairment, but were or were not disabled in terms of their real world functioning (as defined by their instrumental activities of daily living, IADLs). RESULTS: The results revealed that the TOL could reliably discriminate between these two groups. In subsequent structural equation modelling, TOL scores were used to create a prospection model that was able to predict IADLs functioning. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that prospection is a critical component of one's ability to function independently following the onset of a mTBI when chronic cognitive impairment is evident and that clinicians should routinely investigate prospection in this context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207