Memory perfectionism is associated with persistent memory complaints after concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective The etiology of persistent memory complaints after concussion is poorly understood. Memory perfectionism (highly valuing memory ability and intolerance of minor memory lapses) may help explain why some people report persistent subjective memory problems in the absence of corresponding objective memory impairment. The present study investigated the relationship between memory perfectionism and persistent memory complaints after concussion. Methods Adults (N=77; 61% women) with persistent symptoms following concussion were recruited from outpatient specialty clinics. Participants completed the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery, Test of Memory Malingering-Trial 1, and questionnaires measuring memory perfectionism (Memory in Adulthood-Achievement subscale), forgetfulness and other post-concussion symptoms (Rivermead Postconcussion Symptoms Questionnaire; RPQ), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2) at M=17.8 weeks post-injury. Patients with vs. without severe memory complaints (based on the RPQ) were compared. Results Memory perfectionism was associated with severe memory complaint, after controlling for objective memory ability, overall cognitive ability, and depression (95% confidence interval for odds ratio = 1.11 to 1.40). Sensitivity analyses showed that this relationship did not depend on use of specific objective memory tests nor on inclusion of participants who failed performance validity testing. In a control comparison to test the specificity of identified relationships, memory perfectionism was not associated with severe fatigue (95% confidence interval for odds ratio = 0.91 to 1.07). Discussion Memory perfectionism may predispose people to experience persistent memory symptoms and/or contribute to their perpetuation after concussion, with potential relevance to the spectrum of functional cognitive disorders more broadly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".