Cognitive Performance, Depression, and Anxiety 1 Year After Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate associations between depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment among individuals with complicated mild to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) 1 year after injury. SETTING: Multiple inpatient rehabilitation units across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 498 adults 16 years and older who completed inpatient rehabilitation for complicated mild to severe TBI. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional observational cohort study. MAIN MEASURES: Assessments of depression (Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life [TBI-QOL] Depression) and anxiety (TBI-QOL Anxiety) as well as a telephone-based brief screening measure of cognitive functioning (Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone [BTACT]). RESULTS: We found an inverse relationship between self-reported depression symptoms and the BTACT Composite score (β = -0.18, P < .01) and anxiety symptoms and the BTACT Composite score (β = -0.20, P < .01). There was no evidence this relationship varied by injury severity. Exploratory analyses showed depression and anxiety were negatively correlated with both BTACT Executive Function factor score and BTACT Memory factor score. CONCLUSIONS: Both depression and anxiety have a small but significant negative association with cognitive performance in the context of complicated mild to severe TBI. These findings highlight the importance of considering depression and anxiety when interpreting TBI-related neuropsychological impairments, even among more severe TBI.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".