MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313458608 · doi:10.1097/htr.0000000000000839

INCOG 2.0 Guidelines for Cognitive Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury, Part II: Attention and Information Processing Speed

2023· article· en· W4313458608 on OpenAlexaff
Jennie Ponsford, Diana Velikonja, Shannon Janzen, Amber Harnett, Amanda McIntyre, Catherine Wiseman‐Hakes, Leanne Togher, Robert Teasell, Ailene Kua, Eleni Patsakos, Penny Welch‐West, Mark Bayley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMindfulnessTraumatic brain injuryBrain stimulationCognitionPsychological interventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (MS-TBI) commonly causes disruption in aspects of attention due to its diffuse nature and injury to frontotemporal and midbrain reticular activating systems. Attentional impairments are a common focus of cognitive rehabilitation, and increased awareness of evidence is needed to facilitate informed clinical practice. METHODS: An expert panel of clinicians/researchers (known as INCOG) reviewed evidence published from 2014 and developed updated guidelines for the management of attention in adults, as well as a decision-making algorithm, and an audit tool for review of clinical practice. RESULTS: This update incorporated 27 studies and made 11 recommendations. Two new recommendations regarding transcranial stimulation and an herbal supplement were made. Five were updated from INCOG 2014 and 4 were unchanged. The team recommends screening for and addressing factors contributing to attentional problems, including hearing, vision, fatigue, sleep-wake disturbance, anxiety, depression, pain, substance use, and medication. Metacognitive strategy training focused on everyday activities is recommended for individuals with mild-moderate attentional impairments. Practice on de-contextualized computer-based attentional tasks is not recommended because of lack of evidence of generalization, but direct training on everyday tasks, including dual tasks or dealing with background noise, may lead to gains for performance of those tasks. Potential usefulness of environmental modifications is also discussed. There is insufficient evidence to support mindfulness-based meditation, periodic alerting, or noninvasive brain stimulation for alleviating attentional impairments. Of pharmacological interventions, methylphenidate is recommended to improve information processing speed. Amantadine may facilitate arousal in comatose or vegetative patients but does not enhance performance on attentional measures over the longer term. The antioxidant Chinese herbal supplement MLC901 (NeuroAiD IITM) may enhance selective attention in individuals with mild-moderate TBI. CONCLUSION: Evidence for interventions to improve attention after TBI is slowly growing. However, more controlled trials are needed, especially evaluating behavioral or nonpharmacological interventions for attention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0120.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Head Trauma RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207