MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2427693972 · doi:10.1097/htr.0000000000000244

Posttraumatic Headache and Its Impact on Return to Work After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2016· article· en· W2427693972 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heike Andrea Dumke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the value of posttraumatic headaches in predicting return to work (RTW) in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 109 participants recruited from an outpatient head injury rehabilitation center, British Columbia, Canada. DESIGN: Logistic regression analyses of secondary data. MAIN MEASURE: The Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), measure of headache intensity. Nine resulting NPRS scores were used to predict successful versus unsuccessful RTW. RESULTS: The largest effect size [odds ratio Exp(B)] value of 0.474] indicated that the odds of returning to work successfully are more than cut in half for each unit increase in NPRS rating. CONCLUSION: To the author's knowledge, this is the first study of the impact of headache intensity on RTW for patients with MTBI. Posttraumatic headache severity after MTBI should be taken into account when developing models to predict RTW for this population. Headache intensity may act as a confounding variable for at least some injury characteristics (eg, cognitive functioning) and may add to the inconsistencies in the TBI and MTBI literature. Results may be utilized to guide rehabilitation efforts in planning RTW for patients with MTBI.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Head Trauma RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207