Assessment of mild traumatic brain injury with the King-Devick Test® in an emergency department sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The King-Devick Test (K-D) is a brief measure of cognitive processing speed and rapid gaze shifting that appears sensitive to the effects of sport-related concussion. This study evaluated its diagnostic and incremental validity in civilian patients with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). METHODS: Participants with MTBI (n = 26) and controls with non-head injuries (n = 33) were prospectively recruited from an Emergency Department (ED). They underwent a clinical evaluation including the K-D test and the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 2 (SCAT2). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted within 10 days post-injury. RESULTS: The patients with MTBI differed from those without MTBI on components of the SCAT2, including the Symptom Scale (Cohen's d = 1.02-1.15, p < 0.001) and Standardized Assessment of Concussion (d = 0.81, p = 0.004), but not the K-D test (d = 0.40, p = 0.148). In a logistic regression analysis, the K-D Test did not contribute over and above these two measures in predicting group membership (MTBI vs. control), p = 0.191. Low K-D Test scores in the MTBI group (<1 SD below controls) were not associated with poor SCAT2 performance, loss of consciousness or traumatic abnormalities on MRI, suggesting these cases may have been false positives. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings do not support the K-D Test for the assessment of civilian MTBI in an ED setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".