Social determinants of participant recruitment and retention in a prospective cohort study of pediatric mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prior studies have shown poor recruitment and retention of minoritized groups in clinical trials. Objective: To examine several social determinants as predictors of consent to participate and retention as part of a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of children 8-16 with either mild traumatic brain injury (mild TBI) or orthopedic injury (OI). Methods: Children and families were recruited during acute visits to emergency departments (ED) in two large children's hospitals in the midwestern United States for a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of children 8-16 with either mild TBI or OI. Results: A total of 588 (mild TBI = 307; OI = 281) eligible children were approached in the ED and 315 (mild TBI = 195; OI = 120) were consented. Children who consented did not differ significantly from those who did not consent in sex or age. Consent rates were higher among Black (60.9%) and multi-racial (76.3%) children than white (45.3%) children. Among the 315 children who consented, 217 returned for a post-acute assessment (mild TBI = 143; OI = 74), a retention rate of 68.9%. Participants who were multi-racial (96.6%) or white (79.8%) were more likely to return for the post-acute visit than those who were Black (54.3%). Conclusions: Racial differences exist in both recruitment and retention of participants in a prospective, longitudinal cohort of children with mild TBI or OI. Further work is needed to understand these differences to ensure equitable participation of minoritized groups in brain injury research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".