MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2398596447 · doi:10.1177/1073858416651034

Long-Term Effects of Sports Concussions: Bridging the Neurocognitive Repercussions of the Injury with the Newest Neuroimaging Data

2016· review· en· W2398596447 on OpenAlexaff
Luke C. Henry, Sébastien Tremblay, Louis De Beaumont

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Neuroscientist · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionNeurocognitiveChronic traumatic encephalopathyNeuroimagingSubclinical infectionPsychologyNeuroscienceAthletesMedicinePoison controlInjury preventionCognitionPhysical therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known of the long-term effects of sports-related concussion. Within the scientific literature, conclusions vary substantially where some work suggests there are no long-term consequences at all and other studies show rampant neurodegeneration thought to be caused by sometimes even a single concussive blow to the head. There is growing evidence that supports multiple long-term outcomes, showing both subclinical and clinically relevant changes in the brains of athletes, young and old alike. This article reviews the pathohistology of cerebral concussions and examines the extant literature with a focus on electrophysiological and neuroimaging findings. Neurobehavioral and neurocognitive changes are also reviewed, particularly as they are related to chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Lacunae within the literature are explored, and future research directions are proposed.

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 score0.002
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
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe NeuroscientistSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207