Self-reported Balance Disturbance and Performance-Based Balance Impairment After Concussion in the General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence of, and relationship between, self-reported balance disturbance and performance-based balance impairment in the general population with concussion. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital outpatient concussion clinic. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred six individuals with concussion (49 males, mean age = 32.4; SD = 11.5 years), mean (SD) = 5 (1.8) days postinjury. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. MAIN MEASURES: SCAT3 Symptoms Subscale, Balance Error Scoring System, modified Balance Error Scoring System, and center-of-pressure root-mean-square amplitude and velocity in eyes open and closed conditions. RESULTS: The majority of participants reported balance or dizziness symptoms (54% and 63%, respectively) and demonstrated balance impairment on the Balance Error Scoring System and modified Balance Error Scoring System (66% and 58%, respectively). The prevalence of balance impairment across center-of-pressure measures varied from 32% to 48%. There was no effect of balance or dizziness symptom severity on any of the balance measures (F2,103 = 1.02; P = .44) and (F2,103 = 1.45; P = .10), respectively. There was poor agreement between self-report of balance/dizziness symptoms and identified balance impairment across all balance measures (all κ ≤ 0.26 and κ ≤ 0.20, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear relationship between the subjective experience of balance disturbance and objective measures of balance impairment in the general population. These results have implications for clinical evaluation of postconcussive deficits and determination of recovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".