Long-term cognitive and affective consequences of mild traumatic brain injury: comparison with older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Memory and affective processing were compared in young adults with a remote mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), to healthy younger and older adults. We evaluated memory performance when encoding was done under multi-tasking (divided attention) conditions, likely to exacerbate cognitive and psychological symptoms in mTBI. METHODS: Participants studied pairs of unrelated words under either full or divided attention conditions. Memory for single words (item memory) and for pairs of words (associative memory) was then assessed in sequential independent recognition tests, under full attention. RESULTS: Associative memory was poorer than item memory, and worse when encoding was done under divided than full attention. The decline in recognition accuracy from full to divided attention conditions on the associative memory test was significantly greater in mTBI compared to young adults and was similar in magnitude to that observed in older adults under full attention. Self-reported mental and total fatigue increased significantly as performance on the memory tests, following the divided attention condition, decreased, but only in the mTBI group. CONCLUSIONS: Results show lingering memory deficits, and suggest that cognitive tasks may be experienced as psychologically more demanding in those with a mTBI, even months or years after 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".