MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex Differences in Performance of a Clinically-Relevant Dual-Task Assessment in Healthy College Students

2019· article· en· W2979266806 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
AT Nicholas Erdman, Juliana Jimenez, David R. Howell, Thomas Buckley, Joseph Hart, Jacob E. Resch

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsAnalysis of varianceMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineRecallTask (project management)CognitionPsychologyAudiologyPhysical therapyCognitive impairmentInternal medicinePsychiatryCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To determine if biological sex influenced performance on a novel dual-task (DT) assessment which consisted of commonly used clinical measures of sport concussion (SC) in healthy college students. Background DT assessments consist of motor and cognitive tasks administered simultaneously and show promise as clinical measures of SC. Design/Methods Our cross-sectional study included 60 (53.3% female) healthy, recreationally active college students (age = 20.5 ± 1.34 years, height = 171.7 ± 9.33 cm, mass = 69.25 ± 12.23 kg). Participants completed the Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) and timed tandem gait (TTG) test independently (single task [ST]) and concurrently (DT). The revised SAC (45 points) which included a 10-word list was utilized. The TTG composite score was a sum of the average time to completion for each SAC task (3 trials for immediate memory [10-word list], up to 5 trials for the digits-backwards task, and one trial for the months in reverse order and delayed recall tasks). Independent t -tests were used to assess for sex differences for SAC and TTG performance during ST and DT administration. 2 × 2 factorial analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to assess for sex (male, female) by task (ST, DT) interaction effects with effect sizes calculated using Cohen’s d. All analyses were assessed at α = 0.05. Results No sex differences were observed for ST performance of the SAC (males = 37.1 ± 3.45 points, females = 37.4 ± 3.74 points; t [58] = 0.28, p = 0.78) or TTG (males = 44.3 ± 7.09 seconds, females = 46.1 ± 8.88 seconds; t [58] = 0.88, p = 0.38). No sex differences were observed for DT performance of the SAC (males = 39.7 ± 4.50 points, females = 39.2 ± 3.12 points; t [58] = 0.46, p = 0.64) or TTG (males = 52.1 ± 8.56 seconds, females = 52.1 ± 10.28 seconds; t [58] = 0.02, p = 0.98). No sex by task interaction effects were observed for SAC (F = 0.74, p = 0.39, d = 0.23) or TTG (F = 1.1, p = 0.30, d = 0.28) performance for ST or DT assessment. Conclusions Our results indicate that our novel DT assessment was robust to sex differences in healthy college students which supports the utilization of our DT assessment across sexes without adjustment for interpretation.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207