MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140664868 · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.09.004

Neuropsychological evaluation in the diagnosis and management of sports-related concussion☆

2007· review· en· W2140664868 on OpenAlexaff
Rosemarie Scolaro Moser, Grant L. Iverson, Ruben J. Echemendía, Melanie Lovell, Philip Schatz, Frank M. Webbe, Ronald M. Ruff, J BARTH

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionAthletesNeuropsychologyNeurocognitiveTraumatic brain injuryPsychologyPhysical therapyAmateurInjury preventionMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPoison controlPsychiatryMedical emergencyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mild traumatic brain injury in sports is typically referred to as a concussion. This is a common injury in amateur and professional athletics, particularly in contact sports. This injury can be very distressing for the athlete, his or her family, coaches, and school personnel. Fortunately, most athletes recover quickly and fully from this injury. However, some athletes have a slow recovery, and there are reasons to be particularly concerned about re-injury during the acute recovery period. Moreover, some athletes who have experienced multiple concussions are at risk for long-term adverse effects. Neuropsychologists are uniquely qualified to assess the neurocognitive and psychological effects of concussion. The National Academy of Neuropsychology recommends neuropsychological evaluation for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of sports-related concussion at all levels of play.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.422
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.153 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations174
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207