MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does the Concussion Clinican Examination Predict Post-Concussion Subsequent Musculoskeletal Injury?

2019· article· en· W2978269695 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas A. Buckley, Jessie R. Oldham, Nancy Getchell, Buz Swanik, Robert C. Lynall, Caroline Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsConcussionMedicinePhysical therapyLogistic regressionMusculoskeletal injuryPoison controlInjury preventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineEmergency medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To identify post-concussion subsequent lower extermity musculoskeletal injury predictors from a clinical concussion assessment. Background Emerging evidence has identified an elevated risk of subsequent lower extremity musculoskeletal injury (LE-MSK) in the year post-concussion. This approximately 2-fold elevated risk has been identified in diverse populations including high school, college, professional sports and military populations. While persistent impairments in postural control are a speculated mechanism, these assessments require instrumented biomechanical measures; thus, there are currently no clinically feasible predictors which have been identified. Design/Methods Eighty three NCAA Division I student-athletes (51.8% female, ht: 1.75 +/− 0.12 m, wt: 76.2 +/− 20.1 kg) who had suffered a sports related concussion (LOC: 7.5%, PTA: 12.2%) with baseline data were assessed within 72 hours post-concussion were included in this retrospectic study. The clinical examination consisted of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS), Standard Assessment of Concussion (SAC), Clinical Reaction Time (CRT), King-Devick (KD) and the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitve Test (ImPACT) composite values. Change scores (Δ) from baseline to acute post-concussion served as predictors to identify subsequent LE-MSK with a step wise binary logistic regression. Results The subsequent LE-MSK rate was 72.3% (60/83). The overall model failed to identify a predictive relationship between change scores and subsequent injury risk (r2 = 0.242, p = 0.458). Exploratory testing failed to identify any significant individual predictors of subsequent LE-MSK: BESS: Δ = −0.35 errs, p = 0.964; SAC: Δ = −0.55, p = 0.239; ImPACT Verbal Memory: Δ = −0.53, p = 0.324; ImPACT Visual Memory: Δ = −5.6, p = 0.750; ImPACT Motor Speed: Δ = −2.81, p = 0.070; ImPACT Reaction Time: Δ = 0.042 sec, p = 0.164; CRT: Δ = 12.2 ms, p = 0.564; and KD: Δ = 2.8 sec, p = 0.607. Conclusions None of the common clinical concussion assessments were a significant predictor of subsequent LE-MSK potentially due to a high injury rate (72.3%). Future research should continue attempts to idenify clinically feasible predictors to allow clinicians to identify at-risk athletes to engage injury prevention strategies to reduce subsequent LE-MSK.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→