Stability of an ERP-based measure of brain network activation (BNA) in athletes: A new electrophysiological assessment tool for concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine test-re-test reliabilities of novel Evoked Response Potential (ERP)-based Brain Network Activation (BNA) scores in healthy athletes. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational, repeated-measures study. METHODS AND DESIGN: Forty-two healthy male and female high school and collegiate athletes completed auditory oddball and go/no-go ERP assessments at baseline, 1 week, 6 weeks and 1 year. The BNA algorithm was applied to the ERP data, considering electrode location, frequency band, peak latency and normalized amplitude to generate seven unique BNA scores for each testing session. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Mean BNA scores, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) values and reliable change (RC) values were calculated for each of the seven BNA networks. BNA scores ranged from 46.3 ± 34.9 to 69.9 ± 22.8, ICC values ranged from 0.46-0.65 and 95% RC values ranged from 38.3-68.1 across the seven networks. CONCLUSIONS: The wide range of BNA scores observed in this population of healthy athletes suggests that a single BNA score or set of BNA scores from a single after-injury test session may be difficult to interpret in isolation without knowledge of the athlete's own baseline BNA score(s) and/or the results of serial tests performed at additional time points. The stability of each BNA network should be considered when interpreting test-re-test BNA score changes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".