Absence of Differences Between Male and Female Adolescents With Prior Sport Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sex differences following concussion are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to examine whether male and female adolescent athletes with prior concussions differ regarding neurocognitive function and symptom reporting. SETTING: Community-based hockey teams. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 615 elite hockey players 13 to 17 years old (mean = 15.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.4-15.6). There were 517 males and 98 females. Players with English as a second language, attention or learning problems, a concussion within 6 months of baseline, or suspected invalid test profiles were excluded from these analyses. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. MAIN MEASURE: Domain scores and symptom ratings from the ImPACT computerized battery. RESULTS: There were no significant neurocognitive differences between males and females with (F5,227 = 1.40, P = .227) or without (F5,376 = 1.33, P = 0.252) a prior history of concussion. Male and female athletes with a history of concussion reported higher raw symptom scores than those without a prior concussion; however, sex differences disappear when symptom scores are adjusted for known sex differences in controls (total score, F2,230 = 0.77, P = .46; Cohen d = 0.01 or domain scores (F4,227 = 1.52, P = .197; Cohen d = 0.07-0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Although those with prior concussions report more symptoms (but do not differ on neurocognition), this study does not support sex differences with cognition or symptoms in adolescent athletes with prior concussions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".