Effects of concomitant mild traumatic brain injury on resuming work after suffering from an isolated limb fracture: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective is to explore the effects of concomitant mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) on return to work (RTW), among patients suffering from an isolated limb fracture. This follow-up study included a total of 170 working age subjects with an isolated limb fracture, and was conducted in a phone interview approximately 1-year post trauma. 41 had experienced an mTBI and 129 did not. METHODS: Data were obtained through a phone interview conducted on average 20.7 months (SD = 9.6 months) post-accident. The main outcome measure was the number of days taken to RTW after the injury. Demographic information was also gathered during the phone interview. Workers' compensation status was obtained through the hospitals' orthopaedic clinic data. RESULTS: The mTBI group took on average 329.7 days (SD = 298.0) to RTW after the injury, as opposed to 150.3 days (SD = 171.3) for the control group (p < 0.001). After excluding patients who received workers' compensation, the mTBI group still missed significantly more days of work (M = 299.4 days; SD = 333.0) than the control group (M = 105.2 days; SD = 121.6) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study shows that mTBI increases work disability by preventing working-age individuals from rapidly returning to work.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".