Relationship among apathy, cognition, and real-world disability after mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that most people recover soon after a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), yet protracted neuropsychological impairment is evident in many individuals. We sought to elucidate the relationship between apathy and neuropsychological impairment and disability as it pertains to real-world function in patients who sustained a mTBI reporting and demonstrating protracted neuropsychological impaired (i.e., more than three months post-injury). We employed a battery of neuropsychological and psychological measures, along with a measure of apathy in 104 patients who sustained a mTBI reporting neuropsychological complaints (38 in the not disabled group and 66 in the disabled group). Their ability to return to work was used as proxy for real-world disability. Specific deficits in verbal fluency, memory, and information processing predicted real-world disability but apathy did not, suggesting that psychological factors may play less of a mediating role than specific neuropsychological factors in the relationship between impairment and real world disability. Our research furthers our understanding of the cognitive and psychological differences that exist in patients with mTBI who have real-world disability compared to those who do not.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".