MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754005147 · doi:10.3233/wor-172597

Cognition and return to work after mild/moderate traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

2017· review· en· W2754005147 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCommunity Sector Council Newfoundland and Labrador
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryCognitionRehabilitationCognitive rehabilitation therapyClinical psychologyPopulationMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Approximately two percent of the United States population are traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors. The unemployment rate among them is substantial. Cognitive skills are essential to perform any job. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the literature on cognitive rehabilitation (CR) related to mild/moderate TBI to learn the influence of cognition on return to work (RTW) post TBI. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the studies on CR related to RTW post TBI that were published between 2000 and 2015. RESULTS: We critically reviewed 30 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Ten studies highlighted cognition as a predictor variable, seven studies demonstrated support for cognitive testing in RTW assessments, and 13 studies showed the efficacy of CR in facilitating RTW post TBI. CONCLUSION: Cognition plays a significant role in predicting and facilitating RTW in patients with TBI.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.227 · 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