Test or Rest? Computerized Cognitive Testing in the Emergency Department after Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Does Not Delay Symptom Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rest is commonly prescribed following a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). There is concern that cognitive exertion by an acutely or sub-acutely injured brain may negatively alter outcome. The objective of this study was to determine if computerized cognitive testing in the emergency department alters symptom outcome from mTBI. Participants included 77 youth with mTBI who underwent computerized cognitive testing (mean age, 13.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.0-14.2) and were matched to 77 youth with mTBI who did not participate in cognitive testing (mean age, 13.5; 95% CI = 12.9-14.0). Participants who underwent cognitive testing did not differ from those who did not undergo acute cognitive testing on mean symptom ratings or the proportion who were not recovered at 7-10 days, 1 month, 2 months, or 3 months. There also was no difference in symptom outcome for those who underwent a shortened (four subtests, mean time = 16 min) or full-length (seven subtests, mean time = 28 min) version of the computerized test. Brief cognitive exertion using a computerized cognitive assessment after mTBI in youth does not result in worse symptoms at these follow-up periods, does not prolong symptom recovery, should not be considered contraindicated to recovery, and could be considered as another tool to aid in the management of these injuries. Further research with different samples is warranted.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".