MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000880591 · doi:10.1089/neu.2019.6805

Comparison of Methods for Classifying Persistent Post-Concussive Symptoms in Children

2020· article· en· W3000880591 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew R. Mayer, David D. Stephenson, Andrew B. Dodd, Cidney R. Robertson‐Benta, Sharvani Pabbathi Reddy, Nicholas A. Shaff, Keith Owen Yeates, Harm J. van der Horn, Christopher J. Wertz, Grace Park, Scott Oglesbee, Edward J. Bedrick, Richard A. Campbell, J. P. Phillips, Davin K. Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryConcussionMedicinePediatricsScrutinyInjury preventionPoison controlPsychologyPsychiatryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatric mild traumatic brain injury (pmTBI) has received increased public scrutiny over the past decade, especially regarding children who experience persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS). However, several methods for defining PPCS exist in clinical and scientific literature, and even healthy children frequently exhibit non-specific, concussive-like symptoms. Inter-method agreement (six PPCS methods), observed misclassification rates, and other psychometric properties were examined in large cohorts of consecutively recruited adolescent patients with pmTBI (n = 162) 1 week and 4 months post-injury and in age/sex-matched healthy controls (HC; n = 117) at equivalent time intervals. Six published PPCS methods were stratified into Simple Change (e.g., International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision [ICD-10]) and Standardized Change (e.g., reliable change indices) algorithms. Among HC, test-retest reliability was fair to good across the 4-month assessment window, with evidence of bias (i.e., higher symptom ratings) during retrospective relative to other assessments. Misclassification rates among HC were higher (>30%) for Simple Change algorithms, with poor inter-rater reliability of symptom burden across HC and their parents. A 49% spread existed in terms of the proportion of pmTBI patients “diagnosed” with PPCS at 4 months, with superior inter-method agreement among standardized change algorithms. In conclusion, the self-reporting of symptom burden is only modestly reliable in typically developing adolescents over a 4-month period, with additional evidence for systematic bias in both adolescent and parental ratings. Significant variation existed for identifying pmTBI patients who had “recovered” (i.e., those who did not meet individual criteria for PPCS) from concussion across the six definitions, representing a considerable challenge for estimating the true incidence rate of PPCS in published literature. Although relatively straightforward to obtain, current findings question the utility of the most commonly used Simple Change scores for diagnosis of PPCS in clinical settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207