The Discrepancy Between Cognitive Complaints and Neuropsychological Test Findings in Persons With Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better identify variables related to discrepancies between subjective cognitive complaints and objective neuropsychological findings in persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Three rehabilitation centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 504 community-dwelling adult survivors of TBI following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. DESIGN: Prospective cohort observation study. MAIN MEASURES: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition, Digit Span; Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; Trail Making Test, Part B; Word Memory Test; Patient Health Questionnaire-9; Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory; TBI-Quality of Life item bank. RESULTS: Statistical analyses revealed multiple factors associated with subjective-objective discrepancies in attention, memory, and executive functions. Depression was consistently associated with underestimation of cognitive abilities. However, subjective-objective discrepancies varied by cognitive domains in regard to other factors related to underestimation and overestimation of abilities. CONCLUSIONS: Reconciling and interpreting subjective-objective discrepancies regarding cognitive functions following TBI are important tasks for case conceptualization and treatment planning. Depression is an important patient characteristic to consider when discrepancy patterns indicate underestimation of cognitive abilities. This study highlights the importance of assessing mood, a modifiable patient characteristic, with self-report symptom inventories. Future studies are needed to connect these findings with TBI outcomes.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".