MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091170297 · doi:10.46278/j.ncacn.20180618

Executive Functions in Relation to Impulsivity Following Traumatic Brain Injury

2018· article· en· W3091170297 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrea Kocka, Jean Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychologie clinique et appliquée · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpulsivitySequelaTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyExecutive functionsRehabilitationExecutive dysfunctionConstruct (python library)Everyday lifeClinical psychologyCognitionPsychiatryNeuropsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impulsivity is a common and debilitating sequela following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and should be assessed during the rehabilitation process. It is now accepted that impulsivity is a multidimensional construct and such a distinction may help in understanding the mechanisms underlying impulsivity and facilitate assessment. The goal of this study is to examine the link between impulsive behaviors and their underlying mechanisms in a TBI sample. Twenty-five TBI patients and twenty-four matched controls were administered performance tasks measuring prepotent response inhibition, resistance to proactive interference, and decision-making. Group comparisons show weaker performance on measures of inhibition and decision-making by the TBI participants. Finally, performance on the Modified Six Elements Task was associated with impulsive behaviors in everyday life as observed by treating clinicians. This study sheds light on the associations between executive functions and impulsivity in an acute rehabilitation setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologie clinique et appliquéeSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207