MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983208356

Long Term Reproductive Health Outcomes in Women with Perisistent Symptoms Following Traumatic Brain Injury

2019· dissertation· en· W6983208356 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryReproductive healthRehabilitationPublic healthOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionYoung adultPoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a public health concern, yet little is known about the long-term effects unique to women. This study examined the 1) feasibility of recruitment and study procedures; and, 2) long-term reproductive health outcomes in women living with TBI. A convenience sample of 10 women was consecutively recruited from the largest adult TBI rehabilitation program in Canada. Eligible participants were premenopausal women who sustained a TBI one or more years ago. Participants attended the research clinic and completed a structured questionnaire, Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neurological Status and provided a serum sample for Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH). Of the participants, 50% experienced low levels of AMH and all participants experienced high levels of symptomology when compared to the general population. These findings suggest monitoring of reproductive health in the long-term post TBI is needed and future research should be sufficiently powered to expand on these findings.

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)0.003
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207