MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139799768 · doi:10.1177/0009922814567305

A Balanced Protocol for Return to School for Children and Youth Following Concussive Injury

2015· article· en· W2139799768 on OpenAlexafffund
Carol DeMatteo, Kathy Stazyk, Lucy Giglia, William J. Mahoney, Sheila K. Singh, Robert D. Hollenberg, Jessica A. Harper, Cheryl Missiuna, Mary Law, Dayle McCauley, Sarah Randall

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsConcussionMedicineProtocol (science)AttendanceExcellenceMedical educationPoison controlInjury preventionMedical emergencyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few protocols exist for returning children/youth to school after concussion. Childhood concussion can significantly affect school performance, which is vital to social development, academic learning, and preparation for future roles. The goal of this knowledge translation research was to develop evidence based materials to inform physicians about pediatric concussion. METHODS: The Return to School (RTS) concussion protocol was developed following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence procedures. RESULTS: Based on a scoping review, and stakeholder opinions, an RTS protocol was developed for children/youth. This unique protocol focuses on school adaptation in 4 main areas: (a) timetable/attendance, (b) curriculum, (c) environmental modifications, and (d) activity modifications. CONCLUSION: A balance of cognitive rest and timely return to school need to be considered for returning any student to school after a concussion. Implementation of these new recommendations may be an important tool in prevention of prolonged absence from school and academic failure while supporting brain recovery.

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.013

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations82
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical PediatricsSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207