MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cognitive Function as Related to Cumulative Head Impact Exposure in Football: Effects of Position

2016· article· en· W2968057823 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy D. Wilson, Adrian M. Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsFootballHead (geology)CognitionCumulative effectsPosition (finance)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychologyBusinessNeuroscienceGeologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Repetitive sub‐clinical head impacts are linked to progressive cognitive decline and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) diagnoses in professional contact‐sport athletes post mortem. There exists a gap however in understanding when this long‐term damage occurs, and specifically in determining the career stage when signs of injury can be first detected or even the influence of a single season of play. In 2014, our group used a 12‐test online cognitive battery ( www.cambridgebrainsciences.com ) to study the cognitive function of a population of 35 male varsity football athletes in both the pre‐ and post‐season. In comparison to controls, the athletes showed decreased scores in the pre‐season with no pre‐ to post‐season differences. Additionally, athletes’ concussion histories were not correlated with any cognitive measure. Given the positional variation in head impact exposure profiles and CTE diagnoses in football, the objective of the current study is to determine the influence of player position, and thus head impact exposure profile, on cognitive function over the course of a single season as well as the athletes’ careers up until this point. Participants consisted of an overlapping sample of athletes from the same football team for the 2014 and 2015 athletic seasons. Cognitive function was determined using cognitive battery scores and reaction times of players in both the pre‐ and post‐ season. Preliminary results, both aggregated and stratified by position demonstrate there was no difference between pre‐ and post‐season battery scores or reaction times. In accordance with our previous results, this suggests that a single season of head impact exposure does not cause significant cognitive decline. However, when considering all data as a representation of career‐long exposure, results suggest that wide receivers have the fastest reaction times on cognitive tests and consistently outperform their defensive linemen counterparts in terms of battery score. Defensive linemen also demonstrate the most variable reaction times. Previous studies analysing impact magnitude and frequency suggest that defensive linemen sustain significantly more low force hits while the wide receivers endure fewer hits but of high collision forces. Additionally, studies assessing the frequency of CTE diagnosis by position suggest fewer diagnoses in former wide receivers than in defensive linemen. Collectively, these results align well with previously published biomechanical and clinical literature and suggest that there is a continuum of cognitive function impairments across positions and head impact exposure profiles. Better characterization of the relationship between sport‐and position‐specific head impact exposure profiles and cognitive function may help guide participation, coaching strategies, and safe play decisions in sport. Support or Funding Information Research supported by CERC funding awarded to AMO

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→