MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W848046818 · doi:10.1089/neu.2014.3356

Neurocognition in the Emergency Department after a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Youth

2014· article· en· W848046818 on OpenAlexaff
Brian L. Brooks, Samna Khan, Hussain Daya, Angelo Mikrogianakis, Karen Barlow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveGlasgow Coma ScaleTraumatic brain injuryConcussionPsychomotor learningEmergency departmentPsychologyPoison controlMedicineCognitionInjury preventionPsychiatryPhysical therapyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The early cognitive effects from a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) are poorly understood in youth. The aim of this study was to examine acute neurocognitive functioning in children and adolescents who presented to the emergency department (ED) after an mTBI. Youth 8-17 years of age with an mTBI (n=77; mean age, 13.6 years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0-14.2) and an orthopedic injury control (OIC) group (n=28; mean age, 13.9 years; 95% CI, 13.1-14.7) underwent a very brief computerized neurocognitive assessment (four subtests from CNS Vital Signs) in a pediatric trauma hospital ED. The mTBI and OIC groups were not significantly different on age, gender, handedness, computer familiarity, race, median family income, pain rating scales, or time from injury to assessment. There were no significant differences between the mTBI and OIC groups for accuracy on immediate memory, delayed memory, and measures of attention and executive functioning. However, the mTBI group performed significantly worse than the OIC on nearly all measures of psychomotor speed and reaction time. Further, cognitive functioning appears to worsen as more time passes since the mTBI. Neurocognitive deficits are detectable in youth with an mTBI who present to the ED, despite having a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15/15 and normal neuroimaging (or their presentation does not warrant neuroimaging). Their profile appears to include preserved accuracy on cognitive measures, but at the expense of slower psychomotor speed and longer reaction time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations50
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207