Psychological Transdiagnostic Processes in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Recovery: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the extent to which psychological transdiagnostic processes have been investigated in relation to mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) recovery outcomes, summarize methodological approaches, and evaluate consistency among transdiagnostic processes and outcome measures. DATA SOURCES: Five databases (Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to October 2024. Eleven transdiagnostic processes were identified for inclusion based on a review of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses establishing transdiagnostic relevance across a range of psychological disorders: attentional bias, avoidance, emotion regulation, flexibility, interpretation bias, intolerance of uncertainty, neuroticism, perfectionism, repetitive negative thinking, self-discrepancy, and shame. STUDY SELECTION: Peer-reviewed, empirical studies published in English were included if they involved human participants with mTBI predominantly aged ≥18 years and reported ≥1 association between a transdiagnostic process and an mTBI recovery outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: Three reviewers extracted data on study design, sample characteristics, transdiagnostic processes and their associated mTBI outcome measures, and analytical approaches using a standardized extraction form. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-seven studies published between 1995 and 2024 were included, yielding 118 transdiagnostic process-outcome associations. Avoidance (29%), flexibility (29%), and interpretation bias (25%) were the most frequently investigated transdiagnostic processes; symptom severity (36%) and disability (18%) were the most frequently reported outcomes. No studies examined associations involving attentional bias, emotion regulation, or perfectionism. Substantial heterogeneity in transdiagnostic processes and outcome measurement was observed. While most studies employed quantitative analysis methods, qualitative approaches uniquely captured less represented transdiagnostic process-outcome associations (eg, intolerance of uncertainty, self-discrepancy, shame). CONCLUSIONS: Although interest in transdiagnostic processes and mTBI recovery is growing, current investigations are centered on a narrow range of psychological constructs. Broader investigation of transdiagnostic processes known to maintain psychopathology and greater methodological consistency are needed.
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 | 0.036 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".