Occupational performance and multisensory stimulation during post-traumatic amnesia: An observational and randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Occupational performance (OP) and interventions during post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) following traumatic brain injury are poorly understood. PURPOSE.: This study aims to describe a study protocol to (a) track person factors of OP throughout PTA and (b) assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocol comparing an occupation-based multisensory stimulation and environmental enrichment intervention with usual care during PTA. METHOD.: A prospective observational study will be conducted with an embedded Phase II RCT with 30 participants in PTA. Participants will be randomly assigned to group and regularly assessed on PTA and OP measures. Feasibility aspects will be recorded in a logbook. All measures will be repeated at PTA resolution and 1 month later, with a follow-up questionnaire completed at 6 months postinjury. FINDINGS.: Observational data will be analyzed using correlations. Feasibility will be examined descriptively, and group comparisons will be conducted to determine effect size. IMPLICATIONS.: Results will provide a broader understanding of OP during PTA and inform future trials.
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 | 0.031 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.006 |
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".