Relationship between Postconcussion Headache and Neuropsychological Test Performance in High School Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relevance of headache to outcome after sports-related concussion is poorly understood. HYPOTHESES: High school athletes reporting headache approximately 1 week after injury will have significantly more other concussion symptoms and will perform more poorly on neuropsychological tests than athletes not experiencing headache. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Study participants included 109 high school athletes who had sustained concussion and who were divided into two groups: those reporting headache 7 days after injury and those reporting no headaches. The two groups were compared regarding on-field markers of concussion severity at the time of injury and symptoms and neurocognitive test results collected via ImPACT, a computerized neuropsychological test battery and postconcussion symptom scale, at a mean of 6.8 days after injury. RESULTS: Athletes reporting posttraumatic headache demonstrated significantly worse performance on reaction time and memory ImPACT neurocognitive composite scores. These athletes also reported significantly more symptoms other than headache and were more likely to have demonstrated on-field anterograde amnesia. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that any degree of postconcussion headache in high school athletes 7 days after injury is likely associated with an incomplete recovery after concussion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".