Psychological distress and family burden following spinal cord injury: concurrent traumatic brain injury cannot be overlooked.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although concurrent spinal cord injury (SCI) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) are recognized, there is little acknowledgement of SCI/TBI as a contributor to psychological distress and family burden. By mail-out questionnaire, we evaluated psychological distress and family burden in a married group (n = 12) with traumatic SCI who had not been identified as having concurrent TBI on referral to the Canadian Paraplegic Association. Both the person with SCI and the partner completed the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the Adjective Checklist, and a Likert strain scale to measure the perception of the partner's strain. The partner also completed the Zarit Burden Interview. Despite screening criteria designed to selectively recruit individuals without TBI, seven individuals described post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) > or = 3 days. Subsequently, participants' reports were divided into two groups--"longer PTA" and "shorter PTA". On the Brief Symptom Inventory, the two SCI groups did not differ, but the partners of individuals with "longer PTA" had significantly elevated Global Severity Index scores compared to the other partners. The "longer PTA" partner group demonstrated more strain and more burden (as measured by the Likert strain scale and the Zarit Burden Interview). Given the size of the groups (n = 7, n = 5), these findings are presented to illustrate trends and to stimulate further research.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".