Atypical Somatic Symptoms in Adults With Prolonged Recovery From Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Somatization may contribute to persistent symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). In two independently-recruited study samples, we characterized the extent to which symptoms atypical of mTBI but typical for patients suffering from somatization (e.g., gastrointestinal upset, musculoskeletal and cardiorespiratory complaints) were present in adult patients with prolonged recovery following mTBI. The first sample was cross-sectional and consisted of mTBI patients recruited from the community who reported ongoing symptoms attributable to a previous mTBI (n = 16) along with a healthy control group (n = 15). The second sample consisted of patients with mTBI prospectively recruited from a Level 1 trauma center who had either good recovery (GOSE = 8; n = 32) or poor recovery (GOSE < 8; n = 29). In all participants, we evaluated atypical somatic symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 and typical post-concussion symptoms with the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptom Questionnaire. Participants with poor recovery from mTBI had significantly higher ‘atypical’ somatic symptoms as compared to the healthy control group in Sample 1 (b = 4.308, p < 0.001) and to mTBI patients with good recovery in Sample 2 (b = 3.169, p < 0.001). As would be expected, participants with poor outcome in Sample 2 had a higher burden of typical rather than atypical symptoms (t(28) = 4.750, p < 0.001, d = 0.88). However, participants with poor recovery still reported atypical somatic symptoms that were significantly higher (1.4 standard deviations, on average) than those with good recovery. Our results suggest that although ‘typical’ post-concussion symptoms predominate after mTBI, a broad range of somatic symptoms also frequently accompanies mTBI, and that somatization may represent an important, modifiable factor in mTBI recovery.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".