Cognitive functioning after mild traumatic brain injury:Systematic review of neuropsychological test performances across recovery phases and cognitive domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Worldwide, millions of people sustain a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) every year. mTBI can negatively affect cognitive functioning, but it is insufficiently clear to what extent this effect varies by phase of recovery and by cognitive domain. The current study concerns a systematic review of neuropsychological test performances after mTBI in a general adult population. With this systematic review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of recent literature regarding cognitive functioning after mTBI across the acute (0-3 months), subacute (3-6 months), early chronic (6-12 months) and late chronic (>12 months) phases of recovery. Methodology: PubMed and PsycINFO were systematically searched using a comprehensive search strategy. Records were screened in a two-step process. Eligibility criteria concerned the definition of mTBI, generalizability of samples, assessment of cognitive functioning with neuropsychological tests or screenings, and comparison to a control group. Methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized by phase of recovery. Results: Lowered performance by the mTBI groups, as compared to control groups, was found in the acute phase after injury, and to a lesser extent also in the subacute phase. Mental speed, attention and memory were most often affected. In most studies, differences between mTBI and control groups were no longer found in the chronic phases. Conclusions: This systematic review adds to existing research by stratifying neuropsychological performances post-mTBI by phase of recovery and by cognitive domain. Although mild cognitive impairments may present in the (sub)acute phase, there is limited evidence for long-lasting impairments on the group level. These findings can aid clinicians in evaluating patients’ cognitive functioning after mTBI. When used in conjunction with information about other relevant factors, such as fatigue and mental distress, this allows for personalized clinical management for patients with mTBI.
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".