MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980901634 · doi:10.1207/s15324826an1303_4

Measurement of Symptoms Following Sports-Related Concussion: Reliability and Normative Data for the Post-Concussion Scale

2006· article· en· W1980901634 on OpenAlexaff
Mark R. Lovell, Grant L. Iverson, Michael W. Collins, Kenneth Podell, Karen M. Johnston, Dustin Pardini, Jamie Pardini, John Norwig, Joseph C. Maroon

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Neuropsychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionAthletesNormativePsychologyPhysical therapyReliability (semiconductor)Injury preventionClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Poison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important to carefully evaluate self-reported symptoms in athletes with known or suspected concussions. This article presents data on the psychometric and clinical properties of a commonly used concussion symptom inventory-the Post-Concussion Scale. Normative and psychometric data are presented for large samples of young men (N = 1,391) and young women (N = 355). In addition, data gathered from a concussed sample of athletes (N = 260) seen within 5 days of injury are presented. These groups represent samples of both high school and collegiate athletes. Data from a subsample of 52 concussed athletes seen 3 times post-injury are presented to illustrate symptom reporting patterns during the initial recovery period. General guidelines for the clinical use of the scale are provided.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations687
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied NeuropsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207