MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2742935461 · doi:10.1109/icvr.2017.8007459

A feasibility study of a CAREN assessment for mTBI patients with and without prism glasses

2017· article· en· W2742935461 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deanna Quon, Courtney Bridgewater, Dorothyann Curran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitTraumatic brain injuryBalance (ability)RehabilitationPerceptionAffect (linguistics)PsychologyMedicineCognitive psychologyNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensory dysfunction can be a major contributor to persistent symptoms after a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). There are many possible sensory dysfunctions; most impact posture and gait. This leads to increased cognitive processing demands to compensate, possible sensory inattention to the environment often resulting in increased symptomology and activity avoidance. With this project, we hope to characterize and identify novel ways of using virtual reality and motion analysis to help describe one type of sensory dysfunction - Visual Midline-Shift Syndrome (VMSS). Treatment for VMSS is to prescribe prism glasses. The current literature does not include evidence of testing for other sensory modality deficits (ie: vestibular) that could accompany VMSS, nor a full biomechanical analysis of the patient's posture and gait. Using the CAREN system at The Ottawa Hospital Rehabilitation Centre, a set of assessment exercises will be developed to identify spatial perception deficits in patients who have mild brain injuries and to determine if those deficits are only visual in nature. We will also explore how prism glasses affect balance and symptomology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→