MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003795618 · doi:10.1080/13803395.2020.1714552

Long-term cognitive impairment following single mild traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness: Findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2020· article· en· W3003795618 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marc Bedard, Jason Steffener, Vanessa Taler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaBruyère
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyConsciousnessMemory impairmentCognitionExecutive functionsHead injuryCognitive impairmentAudiologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: We examined the extent to which loss of consciousness (LOC) following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) may be associated with impairments in executive functions and declarative memory more than a year after brain injury.Method: Analyses were run on 548 participants who had self-reported LOC of <1 min, 441 with LOC of 1–20 min, and 13,609 no brain injury comparison participants, taken from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), a nationwide study on health and aging.Results: Those that had mTBI with LOC of 1–20 min were more likely than no head injury comparisons to be impaired on measures of executive functioning and declarative memory. Impairments were evident when examining for single- and two-test impairment rates on measures of executive functioning and declarative memory.Conclusions: A subset of people that had reported a single mTBI with LOC more than 12 months ago may experience impairments in executive functioning and declarative memory, particularly those who spent more time unconscious.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.232
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207