MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The value of computerised neurocognitive testing at medical clearance to return to play following a sport-related concussion in youth ice hockey players

2017· article· en· W2619198976 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda M. Black, Brian L. Brooks, Regan S McLeod, Luz Palacios‐Derflingher, Kathryn Schneider, Tracy Blake, Kirsten A Taylor, Willem Meeuwisse, Carolyn A. Emery

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionNeurocognitiveMedicineIce hockeyPhysical therapyConfidence intervalPoison controlLogistic regressionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationOdds ratioTraumatic brain injuryInjury preventionCognitionInternal medicineEmergency medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To determine the value of the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) tool in measuring neurocognitive recovery following concussion. Design Nested case-control. Setting Sport Medicine Centre, Alberta, Canada. Participants Ice hockey players (n=96; 88.5% male, 11-17 years old) following concussion who completed ImPACT at baseline and medical clearance to return to play (RTP) were compared to controls (n=31) matched for age, sex, and testing time interval. Assessment of risk factors Players who sustained a concussion were referred to a study physician for assessment and RTP clearance based on clinical assessment and SCAT2/3. Physicians were blinded to ImPACT scores. Outcome measures ImPACT composite scores were measured (i.?e., verbal memory, visual memory, reaction time, visual motor) at each time interval [i.e., baseline and RTP (cases)/second measurement (controls)]. Between-interval ImPACT reliable change scores (80%CI) were compared. Main results At RTP (Median days since injury: 22, range: 2–84), 43/96 (44.8%) concussed players and 11/31 (35.5%) controls had ≥1 composite scores reliably worse than at baseline. Conditional logistic regression analysis (n=31 matched pairs) did not demonstrate a difference in the odds of having ≥1 reliably worse composite score between concussed and controls [OR=2.00 (95% CI: 0.5–8.0)] or ≥1 reliably better composite score [OR=1.2 (95% CI: 0.37–3.93)]. Conclusions The utility of baseline ImPACT scores in medical decisions to RTP may be limited by the reliability of composite scores in youth populations. Caution is warranted when interpreting ImPACT scores post-concussion on an individual level using baseline performance. Future research including multivariable analyses is warranted in a larger sample. Competing interests Brian Brooks is a co-author of a paediatric memory test for which he receives royalties. No financial interests in ImPACT are declared. None for all other authors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→