MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520936619 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsw079

Maternal and Paternal Distress and Coping Over Time Following Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury

2016· article· en· W2520936619 on OpenAlexaff
Megan E. Narad, Keith Owen Yeates, H. Gerry Taylor, Terry Stancin, Shari L. Wade

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsDenialCoping (psychology)DistressTraumatic brain injuryInjury preventionPoison controlMedicineClinical psychologyProspective cohort studyPsychologySuicide preventionCohortPsychiatryMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Examine differences in maternal and paternal coping and distress following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and orthopedic injuries (OI). Method: Concurrent cohort/prospective design with five assessments between 1 and an average of 7 years after injury of children aged 3-6 years hospitalized for TBI ( n = 87) or OI ( n = 119). Mixed models analyses were used to examine hypotheses. Results: Overall, fathers reported greater depression and general distress than mothers 18 months after injury, but not at long-term follow-up. Active and acceptance coping were unrelated to parental sex, injury factors, or time since injury. A group × rater × time interaction was noted for Denial coping. Following severe TBI, fathers reported greater denial at 18 months, whereas mothers reported greater denial at the long-term follow-up. Denial coping did not differ between mothers and fathers following OI and moderate TBI. Conclusions: Parental response to early TBI is complex and may warrant clinical intervention even years after injury.

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)0.000
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207