Why University Athletes Choose Not to Reveal Their Concussion Symptoms During a Practice or Game
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine why athletes decide not to seek medical attention during a game or practice when they believe they have suffered a concussion. DESIGN: A retrospective survey. SETTING: University Sport Medicine Clinic. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 469 male and female university athletes from several varsity team sports were participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Athletes were surveyed about the previous 12 months to identify specific reasons why those athletes who believed they had suffered a concussion during a game or practice decided not to seek attention at that time, how often these reasons occurred, and how important these reasons were in the decision process. RESULTS: Ninety-two of the 469 athletes (19.6%) believed they had suffered a concussion within the previous 12 months while playing their respective sport, and 72 of these 92 athletes (78.3%) did not seek medical attention during the game or practice at least once during that time. Sports in which athletes were more likely to not reveal their concussion symptoms were football and ice hockey. The reason "Did not feel the concussion was serious/severe and felt you could still continue to play with little danger to yourself," was listed most commonly (55/92) as a cause for not seeking medical attention for a presumed concussion. CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of university athletes who believed they had suffered a concussion chose not to seek medical attention at the time of injury. Improved education of players, parents, and coaches about the dangers of continuing to play with concussion symptoms may help improve reporting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Medical staff should be aware that university athletes who believe they have suffered a concussion may choose not to volunteer their symptoms during a game or practice for a variety of personal and athletic reasons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".