Relation between subjective fogginess and neuropsychological testing following concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relation between the subjective report of feeling foggy at one-week post concussion and acute neuropsychological outcome. The outcome variables were derived from a computerized neuropsychological screening battery, Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT). Participants were 110 high school students who sustained a sports-related concussion and were evaluated 5-10 days post injury (M = 6.8 days). Athletes were divided into two groups on the basis of self-reported fogginess. The first group reported no fogginess (n = 91), whereas the second group reported experiencing some degree of fogginess (n = 19) on a 6-point scale. The athletes with persistent fogginess experienced a large number of other post-concussion symptoms, compared to the athletes with no reported fogginess. In addition, the athletes with persistent fogginess had significantly slower reaction times, reduced memory performance, and slower processing speed. Thus, athletes with any degree of self-reported fogginess at one-week post injury are likely to have adverse effects from their concussions in multiple domains.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".