Brazilian version of the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After a traumatic brain injury, post-concussion symptoms are commonly reported by patients. Although common, these symptoms are difficult to diagnose and recognize. To date, no instruments evaluating post-concussion symptoms have been culturally translated or adapted to the Brazilian context. OBJECTIVE: To culturally adapt the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire for use in Brazilian Portuguese. METHODS: Cross-cultural adaptation was done in five steps: translation, synthesis of translations, back-translation, evaluation by two expert committees and two pretests among adults in a target population. RESULTS: The semantic, idiomatic, cultural and experimental aspects of the adaptation were considered adequate. The content validity coefficient of the items regarding language clarity, pratical pertinence, relevance and dimensionality were considered adequate for evaluating the desired latent variable. Both pretests demonstrated that the instrument had satisfactory acceptability. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian version, named Questionário Rivermead de Sintomas pós Concussionais (RPQ-Br), has been adapted, and is ready for use in the Brazilian context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".