Subjective, but not Objective, Lingering Effects of Multiple Past Concussions in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existing literature on lingering effects from concussions in children and adolescents is limited and mixed, and there are no clear answers for patients, clinicians, researchers, or policy makers. The purpose of this study was to examine whether there are lingering effects of past concussions in adolescent athletes. Participants in this study included 643 competitive Bantam and Midget hockey players (most elite 20% by division of play) between 13 and 17 years of age (mean age=15.5, SD=1.2). Concussion history at baseline assessment was retrospectively documented using a pre-season questionnaire (PSQ), which was completed at home by parents and players in advance of baseline testing. Players with English as a second language, self-reported attention or learning disorders, a concussion within 6 months of baseline, or suspected invalid test profiles were excluded from these analyses. Demographically adjusted standard scores for the five composites/domains and raw symptom ratings from the brief Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) computerized battery were analyzed. Adolescent athletes with one or two or more prior concussions did not have significantly worse neurocognitive functioning on ImPACT than did those with no previous concussions. There were significantly more symptoms reported in those with two or more prior concussions than in those with no or one prior concussion. Adolescents with multiple previous concussions had higher levels of baseline symptoms, but there were not group differences in neurocognitive functioning using this brief computerized battery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".