Cognitive‐communication performance following mild traumatic brain injury: Influence of sex, age, education, site of lesion and bilingualism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although previous research studies have defined several prognostic factors that affect cognitive-communication performance in patients with all traumatic brain injury (TBI) severity, little is known about what variables are associated with cognitive-communication impairment in complicated mild TBI (mTBI) specifically. AIMS: To determine which demographic and trauma-related factors are associated with cognitive-communication performance in the early recovery phase of acute care following a complicated mTBI. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Demographic and accident-related data as well as the scores on cognitive-communication skill measures in the areas of auditory comprehension (complex ideational material subtest of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination), verbal reasoning (verbal absurdities subtest of the Detroit Test of Learning Aptitude), confrontation naming (short form of the Boston Naming Test), verbal fluency (semantic category and letter category naming), and conversational discourse (conversational checklist of the Protocole Montréal d'évaluation de la communication) were retrospectively collected from the medical records of 128 patients with complicated mTBI admitted to a tertiary care trauma hospital. Multiple linear regressions analyses were carried out on the variables sex, age, education level, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, lesion site and bilingualism. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Females performed better than males on letter-category naming, while those more advanced in age performed worse on most cognitive-communication measures. Patients with higher education achieved better confrontation and letter-category naming, whereas reading comprehension results were worse with a lower GCS score. Bilingual individuals presented more difficulty in conversational discourse skills than those who spoke only one language. In terms of site of lesion, the presence of a right frontal injury was associated with worse auditory and reading comprehension and an occipital lesion was related to worse confrontation naming. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Cognitive-communication skills should be evaluated early in all patients with complicated mTBI, but especially in those who are advanced in age, those with fewer years of education and those who present with lower GCS scores, in order to determine rehabilitation needs. The findings of this study will allow acute care clinicians to better understand how various demographic and injury-related factors affect cognitive-communication skills after complicated mTBI and to better nuance the interpretation of their evaluation results in order to improve clinical care. Further study is required regarding the influence of lesion location, sex and bilingualism following complicated mTBI. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject In early acute recovery studies including all severity of TBI, cognitive-communication performance was poorer in individuals with more advanced age, those with fewer years of education and with more severe TBI. It is not yet known which demographic and injury-related variables predict cognitive-communication performance after a complicated mTBI specifically. What this paper adds to existing knowledge We confirmed that age, level of education and TBI severity, as measured with the GCS score, were associated with some areas of cognitive-communication performance for a group of patients in the acute stage of recovery from a complicated mTBI. We also identified that sex, bilingualism and site of lesion were new variables that show an influence on aspects of cognitive-communication skills in this group of patients. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The findings of this study on prognostic factors in the case of complicated mTBI will help acute care clinicians to better understand evaluation results knowing the variables that can influence cognitive-communication performance and to nuance the interpretation of these results with the goal of determining rehabilitation needs and enhancing clinical care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".