United States Military Service Members Demonstrate Substantial and Heterogeneous Long-Term Neuropsychological Dysfunction after Moderate, Severe, and Penetrating Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to examine long-term neuropsychological outcome after moderate, severe, and penetrating traumatic brain injury (TBI) in U.S. military service members and veterans (SMVs). Eighty-five SMVs with a history of moderate ( n = 18), severe ( n = 17), or penetrating ( n = 26) TBI, or an injury without TBI (i.e., trauma control [TC], n = 24) were assessed five or more years (mean = 69.4 months; standard deviation = 35.6) post-injury. All passed performance validity tests. Participants completed a battery of neurocognitive tests and a personality inventory. Five cognitive domain composites, each composed of four test scores, and an overall test battery mean (OTBM) were computed. The penetrating TBI group performed worse than the TC group and/or the moderate TBI group on most cognitive domains and the OTBM. The severe TBI group also performed worse than the TC group and moderate TBI group on processing speed and the OTBM, and worse than the TC group on attention/working memory. Just more than half of participants with severe (56%) or penetrating (64%) TBI met criteria for mild neurocognitive disorder, with processing speed the most commonly impaired domain. In addition, 80% of TBI participants had one or more clinically elevated scales on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form ® (MMPI-2-RF), with somatic complaints the most common elevation. In conclusion, there was significantly reduced cognitive and psychological functioning many years after severe and penetrating TBI in SMVs. Cognitive and psychological dysfunction, however, were highly variable, with a substantial minority of SMVs having good outcome. Long-term individualized support is necessary for individuals after moderate, severe, and penetrating 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".