Concussion and its management: What do parents know?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity of parental suspicion of concussion relative to paediatric emergency physicians in children who presented to an emergency department (ED) with a head injury. A secondary objective was to examine the variables associated with parental suspicion of concussion concordant with that of a physician. METHODS: Parents of children five to 18 years of age presenting to an urban paediatric ED with a nonstructural head injury completed a 24-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 577 eligible parents, 495 (85.8%) consented to participate. The sensitivity of parental suspicion for concussion was 40.0% (95% CI 33.2% to 47.2%), while the specificity was 58.3% (95% CI 52.4% to 64.0%). The variable of child age ≥10 years was associated with an increased odds (OR 3.0) of a parental suspicion of concussion concordant with that of a physician; parent age, parent sex, mechanism of head injury and history of concussion in the child were not. Although 453 (91.5%) parents would stop activity if they believed their child sustained a concussion, only 159 (32.1%) were familiar with return-to-play guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Parents often did not suspect a concussion when it was ultimately diagnosed by a paediatric emergency physician, although they were more likely to do so in older children. Only approximately one-third were aware of return-to-play guidelines. To enhance the potential for parent-driven advocacy in the recognition and management of concussion, these data support the need for increased parental education on this injury.
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 | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".