Cognitive impairment in diffuse axonal injury patients with favorable outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose Traumatic brain injury (TBI), especially the severe TBI are often followed by persistent cognitive sequalae, including decision-making difficulties, reduced neural processing speed and memory deficits. Diffuse axonal injury (DAI) is classified as one of the severe types of TBI. Part of DAI patients are marginalized from social life due to cognitive impairment, even if they are rated as favorable outcome. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the specific type and severity of cognitive impairment in DAI patients with favorable outcome. Methods The neurocognition of 46 DAI patients with favorable outcome was evaluated by the Chinese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic (MoCA-BC), and the differences in the domains of cognitive impairment caused by different grades of DAI were analyzed after data conversion of scores of nine cognitive domains of MoCA-BC by Pearson correlation analysis. Results Among the 46 DAI patients with favorable outcome, eight had normal cognitive function (MoCA-BC ≥ 26), and 38 had cognitive impairment (MoCA-BC < 26). The MoCA-BC scores were positively correlated with pupillary light reflex ( r = 0.361, p = 0.014), admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ( r = 0.402, p = 0.006), and years of education ( r = 0.581, p < 0.001). Return of consciousness ( r = −0.753, p < 0.001), Marshall CT ( r = −0.328, p = 0.026), age ( r = −0.654, p < 0.001), and DAI grade ( r = −0.403, p = 0.006) were found to be negatively correlated with the MoCA-BC scores. In patients with DAI grade 1, the actually deducted scores (Ads) of memory ( r = 0.838, p < 0.001), abstraction ( r = 0.843, p < 0.001), and calculation ( r = 0.782, p < 0.001) were most related to the Ads of MoCA-BC. The Ads of nine cognitive domains and MoCA-BC were all proved to be correlated, among patients with DAI grade 2. However, In the DAI grade 3 patients, the highest correlation with the Ads of MoCA-BC were the Ads of memory ( r = 0.904, p < 0.001), calculation ( r = 0.799, p = 0.006), orientation ( r = 0.801, p = 0.005), and executive function ( r = 0.869, p = 0.001). Conclusion DAI patients with favorable outcome may still be plagued by cognitive impairment, and different grades of DAI cause different domains of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".