MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406218320 · doi:10.1002/alz.091609

Sex/Gender Differences in the Cognitive‐Aging Effects of Head Injuries due to Interpersonal Violence

2024· article· en· W4406218320 on OpenAlexaff
D. Hanes

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpersonal violencePsychologyCognitionHead (geology)Interpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicineSocial psychologyPoison controlMedical emergencyPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Traumatic brain injury is a risk factor for worse later‐life brain health, including dementia. Yet the role of interpersonal violence and its gendered nature in the TBI–cognition relationship has yet to be fully studied. While men and women alike commit and experience violence, gender‐based violence (GBV)—which primarily targets women, transgender and gender‐nonconforming people, and from which they tend to suffer worse injuries than men—is understudied. Using population‐based survey data, we examine gender differences in cognitive effects of self‐reported head injuries due to interpersonal violence. Method We use data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = ), a survey of Americans age 51+. It gathered self‐reported lifetime head‐injury data in 2014, allowing participants to specify injury causes; we restricted our analysis to participants injured in a physical altercation or shot in the head. Participants also indicated injury severity in several binary variables. We calculated summary statistics to compare injury prevalence between men and women. To assess cognitive effects, we used multilevel regressions with subsequent cognitive performance (27 points possible) as the outcome variable and interaction between injury severity and sex/gender as the primary predictor variable, adjusting for race/ethnicity, education, and wealth. Result While men were likelier to report head injuries due to fights (c2 = 12.884; p < 0.001), women were over twice as likely to report ongoing health problems due to head injury (c2 = 10.638; p = 0.001), likelier to have been hospitalized due to a fight or gunshot‐caused head injury (c2 = 5.533; p = 0.019), and nearly 5x likelier to report losing consciousness due to choking (c2 = 5.069; p = 0.024). Women hospitalized due to a fight or gunshot experienced worse cognitive effects (b = ‐2.428; p = 0.004) than hospitalized men relative to unhospitalized men (b = ‐2.600, p = 0.005 and b = ‐3.372, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion In keeping with existing literature, women suffer worse injuries than men from interpersonal violence; women also have worse cognitive harms due to head injuries than do men. The reasons for these outcomes, and their relationship to GBV, requires further investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→