The negative influence of chronic alcohol abuse on acute cognitive recovery after a traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive recovery after a traumatic brain injury (TBI) may be negatively affected by a prior alcohol use disorder (AUD). This study aims to compare the cognitive recovery of patients who had comorbid TBI and AUD relative to TBI alone and investigate the influence of blood alcohol level (BAL) at hospital admission on this recovery. METHOD: The sample consisted of 42 patients who had sustained a TBI (mild or moderate) and had an AUD diagnosis (TBI+AUD), and 42 patients who had sustained a TBI alone (TBI). The Brief Cognitive Exam in Traumatology (EXACT), designed to evaluate cognitive functions in the acute phase of TBI was administered (± 2 weeks post-injury). RESULTS: After controlling for BAL at admission, the TBI+AUD group had a lower EXACT total score compared to the TBI group. The negative influence of age on the results was more pronounced in the TBI+AUD group. The number of intoxicated patients at admission was also higher in this group, although there was no correlation between BAL at admission and cognitive outcome. CONCLUSION: The presence of an AUD diagnosis seems to exert a greater negative influence on cognitive recovery following a mild/moderate TBI than BAL at admission, especially in older patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".