MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Baseline concussion symptom report in college athletes: comparison of scores on SCAT2 versus impact

2013· article· en· W2046350979 on OpenAlexaffabout
Constance Lebrun, Martin Mrázik, Joan Matthews-White, Nicole Lemke, Dhiren Naidu

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionAthletesMedicinePhysical therapyTest (biology)Poison controlInjury preventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate differences between baseline self-report of concussion symptoms with two commonly used concussion assessment tools. Design Retrospective, cross-sectional. Setting University of Alberta. Subjects One hundred and ninety-four varsity athletes (117 males; 77 females). Intervention Prior to the competitive season, subjects completed baseline testing, including self-report of concussion symptoms, with the Subjective Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT2) and the on-line computerised Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment of Cognition (ImPACT) test, under supervision of an athletic therapist. Testing was counterbalanced to control for serial position effect. Outcome Measures The 18 shared self-report concussion symptoms were compared, and a general linear model used to identify possible interactions between gender and group type (SCAT2 vs ImPACT). Finally correlations were calculated. Results There was an interaction between gender and group type for 1 symptom (trouble falling asleep). Surprisingly, pairwise comparisons identified differences (p≤ 0.05) on 10/18 paired symptoms, with correlations ranging from 0.08 to 0.58. Conclusions Subjects respond differently when self-reporting concussion symptoms, depending on type of instrument used, and mode of administration. Despite test items being similar in content, there are significant differences in symptom reports in the same subject between SCAT2 and ImPACT tests. Use of similar data collection methods for baseline testing, assessment post-injury and prior to return-to-play is indicated, to increase both the diagnostic and prognostic utility of such tests. This further emphasises current recommendations that these tests not be used in isolation to make therapeutic decisions regarding athletes with concussion; and underscores the importance of serial clinical evaluations by a suitably qualified physician. Competing interests None. All authors have signed the disclosure form.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→