Influence of Anxiety on Baseline Cognitive Testing and Symptom Reporting in Adolescent Student Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety symptoms are commonly endorsed by student athletes. This study examined the possible influence of anxiety on baseline cognitive testing and symptom reporting in a large sample of adolescent student athletes. Participants were 37,945 adolescent student athletes from the state of Maine who completed baseline testing using ImPACT®. ImPACT includes an evaluation of cognitive functioning and a questionnaire assessing the presence and severity of common post-concussion symptoms. Participants were divided into high and low anxiety groups based on endorsement of anxiety-like symptoms. Student athletes in the high anxiety group were more likely to be girls and to have a greater lifetime history of treatment for mental health problems and headaches (ps < 0.001). The high anxiety group scored slightly lower on cognitive tests (Cohen ds = 0.15–0.26) and reported a much greater amount of baseline pre-season symptoms (Cohen d = 3.38). More than eight of 10 youth in the high anxiety group (82.7%) met International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems–10th Revision (ICD-10) symptom criteria for at least a mild form of the postconcussional syndrome compared with less than two of 10 (18.4%) in the low anxiety group. Students in the high anxiety group had slightly lower scores on neurocognitive testing, but the differences were not practically meaningful; however, they endorsed dramatically more physical, cognitive, and emotional symptoms. Anxiety can mimic the ICD-10 postconcussional syndrome in adolescent student athletes at baseline, when they have not been injured.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".