Subjective cognitive functioning in adults hospitalized after traumatic brain injury: A four-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the evolution of subjective cognitive functioning over four years in adults hospitalized after traumatic brain injury (TBI), comparing mild and moderate-severe TBI, and accounting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. METHOD: This secondary analysis of a longitudinal observational cohort study includes 222 adult participants hospitalized following a TBI (mean age = 41 ± 15 years; 29% women; 65% mild, 35% moderate-severe TBI). Data were collected via in-person/telephone interview and self-report questionnaires administered 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months post-TBI. The primary outcome measure for subjective cognitive functioning was the Medical Outcomes Study Cognitive Functioning Scale (MOS-COG). RESULTS: Mixed model analyses revealed a significant Time effect, with post hoc tests showing a better perceived cognitive functioning on the MOS-COG at 4 months than at 24 and 36 months after TBI. The TBI severity effect and TBI severity*Time interaction were not significant. Secondary effects revealed that poorer subjective cognitive functioning was associated with higher levels of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and fatigue, and lower quality of life. Overall, the MOS-Cog score was about one standard deviation below the normative mean, suggesting greater cognitive complaints than in the general population, regardless of injury severity. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that subjective cognitive functioning is poorer than normative values and fairly stable over four years after TBI, with a slight decrease between 4 and 24-36 months, and is similar between mild and moderate-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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".