MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE CHALLENGE OF COMBINING EASE OF USE WITH DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITY IN AN CONCUSSION ASSESSMENT TOOL

2001· article· en· W1981686572 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Management Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionComputer scienceUsabilityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineHuman–computer interactionMedical emergencyPoison controlInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concussion in sport is an injury which until recently was dealt with on a qualitative basis, with physicians basing diagnoses and treatment plans on experience and clinical judgment. Hence, the need for a standardized, scientifically proven, and generally accepted protocol for concussion assessment and treatment has been demonstrated. A critical review of the existing literature on neuropsychological testing was undertaken. Based on the data, the McGill on field exam was developed and used since 1998. The goal of this project was not to revisit the content of that document. Instead, we want to convey our experience with the format of this evaluation form, with the assumption that conclusions we have reached may be applicable and of interest to others who are using similar evaluation testing. In order to obtain a review of the Concussion On Field Exam, systematic interviews were conducted with doctors and physiotherapists. Specifically, questions were chosen so as to stimulate the interviewee to think about the exam from various angles, and to thus constructively criticize the degree of user-friendliness associated with the tool on several different levels û namely the introduction, presentation and method of use of the form. Finally, in asking questions which pertained to specific portions of the form, or specific situations of use, the interviewees were given the opportunity to structure their reflections and thus consider very precise problems that they might have been neglected in a more general review. One of the most prevalent desires expressed by the individuals interviewed was that clear, explicit instructions be provided with the Concussion On Field Exam. The other concern regarding the Concussion On Field Exam that was raised was that there was no practical method of recording the results of the test in the on field trauma situation. Although the results obtained from this study, then, reflected opinions regarding one particular concussion assessment protocol, we believe that many of the expressed problems and concerns are much more general in nature. Hence, any recommendations expressed herein are at once particular to the McGill Concussion On Field Exam, and yet can also be generalized to apply to other diagnostic tools which are similar in nature, purpose, or method.

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.

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)0.006
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.263 · 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