Using artificial neural networks to identify patients with concussion and postconcussion syndrome based on antisaccades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Artificial neural networks (ANNs) have shown considerable promise as decision support tools in medicine, including neurosurgery. However, their use in concussion and postconcussion syndrome (PCS) has been limited. The authors explore the value of using an ANN to identify patients with concussion/PCS based on their antisaccade performance. METHODS: Study participants were prospectively recruited from the emergency department and head injury clinic of a large teaching hospital in Toronto. Acquaintances of study participants were used as controls. Saccades were measured using an automated, portable, head-mounted device preprogrammed with an antisaccade task. Each participant underwent 100 trials of the task and 11 saccade parameters were recorded for each trial. ANN analysis was performed using the MATLAB Neural Network Toolbox, and individual saccade parameters were further explored with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and a logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Control (n = 15), concussion (n = 32), and PCS (n = 25) groups were matched by age and level of education. The authors examined 11 saccade parameters and found that the prosaccade error rate (p = 0.04) and median antisaccade latency (p = 0.02) were significantly different between control and concussion/PCS groups. When used to distinguish concussion and PCS participants from controls, the neural networks achieved accuracies of 67% and 72%, respectively. This method was unable to distinguish study patients with concussion from those with PCS, suggesting persistence of eye movement abnormalities in patients with PCS. The authors' observations also suggest the potential for improved results with a larger training sample. CONCLUSIONS: This study explored the utility of ANNs in the diagnosis of concussion/PCS based on antisaccades. With the use of an ANN, modest accuracy was achieved in a small cohort. In addition, the authors explored the pearls and pitfalls of this novel approach and identified important future directions for this research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".