Long-Term Deficits in Executive Functions caused by Sports-Related Concussion in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuropsychological testing has been used regularly in the past few years to evaluate neurocognitive sequelae after a sport-related concussion. Questions on specific long term sequelae remain unanswered in these athlete populations. Women are largely involved in contact sport such as soccer, but few studies have specifically evaluated possible sequelae in that gender group. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cognitive sequelae following a first concussion in a group of university-level female soccer players, 7 to 9 months after the injury. METHODS: A group of first time concussed athletes was compared to a group of age-matched team-mates who never experienced a concussion. Paper-pencil and computerized tasks were used to assess different aspects of neuropsychological functions. RESULTS: Short- and long-term verbal memory, selective visual attention, and simple reaction-time were normal. In contrast, although the concussed athletes were as accurate as the control group, their decision making time (complex reaction-time task) and planning time (Tour of London task) were significantly slower. CONCLUSION: Results of this study suggest that frontal lobe executive functions are most vulnerable to a sports-related concussion and are still affected over half a year post-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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".