MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970735673 · doi:10.1076/clin.17.4.460.27934

Interpreting Change on ImPACT Following Sport Concussion

2003· article· en· W1970735673 on OpenAlexaff
Grant L. Iverson, Mark R. Lovell, Michael W. Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsRiverview HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionConfidence intervalTest (biology)AthletesPsychologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePoison controlInjury preventionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric characteristics of Version 2.0 of ImPACT (Immediate Postconcussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing). The focus was on the stability of the test scores and the calculation of reliable change confidence intervals for the test-retest difference scores. A sample of 56 nonconcussed adolescents and young adults completed the test battery on two occasions. Test-retest coefficients, reliable change difference scores, and confidence intervals for measurement error are provided. These reliable change parameters were applied to a second sample of 41 concussed amateur athletes who were tested preseason and within 72 hr of injury. Applying these confidence intervals allows more precise determinations of deterioration, improvement, and recovery in the initial days following 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations520
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Clinical NeuropsychologistSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207