Evaluating the Functional and Cognitive Examination for patients with acute acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: The Functional and Cognitive Examination is a cross-battery neuropsychological baseline assessment. It was designed specifically for patients with acquired brain injury in the acute rehabilitation stage. This investigation focused on the utility of the Functional and Cognitive Examination to identify the association between the functional and cognitive performance of acquired brain injury patients and the construct validity of the battery. Methods: The Functional and Cognitive Examination is administered as a standard for all patients admitted to the inpatient neurological assessment and specialist rehabilitation unit. Forty two patients had been recruited over a two year period. Raw scores have been analysed and descriptive data is provided. Spearman's correlations were used to observe associations between functional and cognitive performance. The Functional and Cognitive Examination was also correlated against the Functional Assessment Measure and the Northwick Park Therapy Dependency Assessment. Findings: There was a positive association between lower performance on the Functional and Cognitive Examination cognitive component and the Functional and Cognitive Examination functional task. Similarly, lower scores on the Functional Assessment Measure had positive associations with performance on the Functional and Cognitive Examination functional task. Conclusions: The Functional and Cognitive Examination is a useful neuropsychological baseline assessment. It illustrates that cognitive and functional components are associated and the Functional and Cognitive Examination outcomes are associated with the Functional Assessment Measure.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".