THE CHALLENGE OF COMBINING EASE OF USE WITH DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITY IN AN CONCUSSION ASSESSMENT TOOL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.526 | 0.730 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".