MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581881283 · doi:10.1089/neu.2016.4719

Cogniphobia in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2017· article· en· W2581881283 on OpenAlexaff
Noah D. Silverberg, Grant L. Iverson, William J. Panenka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryHeadachesNeuropsychologyPsychologyCognitionEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceConcussionMedicineClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryPoison controlInjury preventionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cogniphobia refers to avoidance of mental exertion out of a fear of developing or exacerbating a headache. Headaches are very common after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and often become chronic. Cogniphobia is hypothesized to contribute to poor cognitive test performance and persistent disability in some patients with mTBI. Eighty patients with mTBI and post-traumatic headaches were recruited from specialty outpatient clinics. They completed a battery of questionnaires (including a cogniphobia scale) and neuropsychological tests (the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery and the Medical Symptom Validity Test) at 2-3 months post injury, in a cross-sectional design. Participants with more severe headaches reported higher levels of cogniphobia. Cogniphobia was associated with lower performance on memory testing (but not other cognitive tests), independent of headache severity. Participants who avoided mental exertion also tended to avoid physical activity and traumatic stress triggers. The findings provide preliminary support for the role of cogniphobia in persistent cognitive difficulties after mTBI, and suggest that cogniphobia may reflect a broader avoidant coping style.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations61
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207