Discourse Performance in Adults With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Orthopedic Injuries, and Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, and Healthy Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adults with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) are at risk for communication disorders, yet studies exploring cognitive-communication performance are currently lacking. AIMS: This aim of this study was to characterize discourse-level performance by adults with mTBI on a standardized elicitation task and compare it to (a) healthy adults, (b) adults with orthopedic injuries (OIs), and (c) adults with moderate to severe TBI. METHOD: This study used a cross-sectional design. The participants included mTBI and OI groups recruited prospectively from an emergency medicine department. Moderate to severe TBI and healthy data were acquired from TalkBank. One-way analyses of variance were used to compare mean linguistic scores. RESULTS: Seventy participants across all groups were recruited. Groups did not differ on demographic variables. The study found significant differences in both content and productivity measures among the groups. Variables did not appear sensitive to differentiate between mTBI and OI groups. DISCUSSION: Cognitive and language performance of adults with mTBI is a pressing clinical issue. Studies exploring language with carefully selected control groups can influence the development of sensitive measures to identify individuals with cognitive-communication deficits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".