Criterion validity of the brief test of adult cognition by telephone (BTACT) for mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing demand for remote assessment options for measuring cognition after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). The current study evaluated the criterion validity of the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT) in distinguishing between adults with mTBI and trauma controls (TC) who sustained injuries not involving the head or neck. The BTACT was administered to the mTBI (n = 46) and TC (n = 35) groups at 1–2 weeks post-injury. Participants also completed the Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire. The BTACT global composite score did not significantly differ between the groups (t(79) = −1.04, p = 0.30); the effect size was small (d = 0.23). In receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, the BTACT demonstrated poor accuracy in differentiating between the groups (AUC = 0.567, SE = 0.065, 95% CI [0.44, 0.69]). The BTACT’s ability to discriminate between mTBI and TCs did not improve after excluding mTBI participants (n = 15) who denied ongoing cognitive symptoms (AUC = 0.567, SE = 0.072, 95% CI [0.43, 0.71]). The BTACT may lack sensitivity to subacute cognitive impairment attributable to mTBI (i.e., not explained by bodily pain, post-traumatic stress, and other nonspecific effects of injury).
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".