A Nonliquid Crystal Display Screen Computer for Treatment of Photosensitivity and Computer Screen Intolerance in Post-Concussion Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquid crystal display (LCD) screens refresh at a rate of 60 times per second, which can be perceived by concussed individuals who have photosensitivity, leading to computer intolerance. A non-LCD computer screen that refreshes at a much lower rate could relieve this photosensitivity and computer screen intolerance in patients with post-concussion syndrome (PCS). Twenty-nine patients with PCS, computer intolerance, and photosensitivity performed a reading task for a maximum of 30 min, with an LCD computer or a non-LCD device, and were given a comprehension test after completion of the reading task. The Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 3 was administered before and after each reading task. Symptom scores, amount of time spent reading, and performance on the comprehension tests were compared between the two devices. Patients also completed a self-report questionnaire of their subjective experience. The LCD screen computer produced significantly greater symptom exacerbation (median difference = 5, W = 315, p < 0.01) and a greater number of symptoms (median difference = 1, W = 148, p < 0.01) than the non-LCD screens. The non-LCD screen resulted in a longer symptom-free reading time (median = 48 sec, W = 147, p < 0.01), but not a greater number of words read (median = 281, W = 148, p = 0.098). Females were more likely to have greater symptom exacerbation with the LCD screen (U = 14.0, p < 0.01). No significant difference was found in performance on the comprehension test. Subjective reports showed that the non-LCD experience was more favorable, and most patients stated they would recommend this device for other patients with PCS. This study is the first to show the clinical utility of non-LCD screen computers in the management of photosensitivity and computer screen intolerance in patients with PCS. The non-LCD screen computer has the potential to facilitate return-to-work or return-to-school in concussed individuals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".