Do concussed and non-concussed head trauma individuals have similar symptoms? A retrospective chart review of chronic post-concussive symptomatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many head trauma patients who present with prolonged post-concussion symptoms do not meet the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM) diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBI). This population has not been extensively studied and its clinical characteristics are currently uncertain. A retrospective chart review was conducted to explore the symptomatic differences between mTBI and non-mTBI head trauma patients presenting at a concussion clinic with chronic post-concussion symptoms (PCSx). Patient information was extracted from 161 charts, of which 128 subjects met the ACRM criteria for mTBI (ACRM + PCSx), while 33 did not (non-ACRM + PCSx). These two groups were compared for demographic variables and symptomology. This study found that 20.5% of subjects presenting with chronic post-concussion symptoms do not meet ACRM criteria. No symptom-specific differences were found between the two populations in any of the categories tested. These results show that chronic post-concussion symptoms are similar in both mTBI and non-mTBI head trauma patients in the general population, suggesting a need for further research focusing on this group.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".