Waiting time for specialized interdisciplinary rehabilitation associated with persistent symptoms of mild traumatic brain injury: an observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Approximately thirty percent of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) suffer from persistent symptoms that can impact their day-to-day activities. The primary aim of this study was to examine the relationship between waiting time for rehabilitation services and persistent post-mTBI symptoms. The secondary objective was to explore the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics and persistent symptoms.Materials and methods An observational cohort study was conducted at a specialized interdisciplinary rehabilitation program for mTBI in Québec, Canada. Waiting time was the predictor variable and symptom outcomes were measured at two points in time.Results Twenty-six participants completedquestionnaires at both baseline and follow-up. Approximately 70% of participants received their first appointment within six months of the injury, while the others waited more than eight months. Longer waiting times were associated with higher scores of persistent post-concussion symptoms on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (p = 0.008), higher scores on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (p = 0.005), and lower scores on the Community Integration Questionnaire (p = 0.006) at baseline, as well as higher scores on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (p = 0.046) at follow-up.Conclusion This study reveals the negative effects of delayed access to specialized rehabilitation services for patients with mTBI and calls for necessary policy changes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".