The effect of age, sex, and concussion history on preseason ImPACT values of elite Canadian youth ice hockey players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the effect of age, sex, and concussion history on preseason scores from the ImPACT computer-based neurocognitive test battery in elite 12–17-year-old ice hockey players. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Participants were recruited from the most elite divisions (AA, AAA) of youth ice hockey leagues in Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Participants 714 Bantam (ages 12–14) (47 female, 161 male) and Midget (ages 15–17) (67 female, 439 male) hockey players. Assessment of Risk Factors Players completed a preseason ImPACT test before the 2011–2012 season. Outcome Measures Outcomes were composite scores <25th percentile (based on sample distribution) for verbal memory, visual memory and impulse control, and scores >75th percentile for visual motor speed, reaction time, and total symptoms. Results Using multivariate Poisson regression, adjusted for cluster by team, those aged 16–17 years were less likely to score <25th percentile in verbal memory (IRR=0.85; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98) or >75th percentile in reaction time (IRR=0.79; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91), but were more likely to score >75th percentile in visual motor speed (IRR=1.27; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.37) and total symptoms (IRR=1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Males were less likely to score <25th percentile in verbal memory (IRR=0.85; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.92), but more likely to score >75th percentile in visual motor speed (IRR=1.20; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.38) and total symptoms (IRR=1.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.44). Previous concussion was not predictive of ImPACT scores in the poorest quartile on any subscale. Conclusions Age and sex influence preseason ImPACT scores, although concussion history does not appear to have an effect. Acknowledgements The Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre is one of the International Research Centres for Prevention of Injury and Protection of Athlete Health supported by the International Olympic Committee. We acknowledge the funding from the McCarthy Tetrault Award, Alberta Innovates Health Solutions, and the Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute for Child and Maternal Health. Competing interests Author B Brooks declares research grant support from CNS Vital Signs (neurocognitive test battery publisher) and PAR, Inc (test publisher).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".