The effect of diagnostic terminology on cognitive, emotional, and post-concussive sequelae following mild brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the diagnostic terms 'mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)' and 'concussion' result in differences in perceived cognitive, emotional, and post-concussive sequelae. METHOD: = 40), and were instructed to simulate on a battery of cognitive (Neuropsychological Assessment Battery - Screening Module), emotional (Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory-II), and post-concussive (Rivermead Postconcussive Symptoms Questionnaire) measures. RESULTS: There were no significant group differences between expected cognitive, emotional, or post-concussive consequences. However, both groups received poorer scores than the normative data. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that diagnostic terminology does not appear to influence anticipated recovery following mild brain injury. However, the presentation of information about the injury itself may impact recovery outcomes. This study provides preliminary support for the potential negative effects that may arise as a result of providing participants with non-evidence based information about mild brain injuries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".