Using a Prism Paradigm to Identify Sensorimotor Impairment in Youth Following Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study assesses the intrarater reliability and utility of a prism paradigm to identify sensorimotor impairment following sports-related concussion in youth, (recent and history of concussion) compared with youth with no concussion. SETTING: University of Calgary. PARTICIPANTS: Three groups of 40 ice hockey players ranging in age from 11 to 17 years were included: (1) no concussion; (2) recent concussion, mean number of days since last concussion 5 (95% CI, 4-6); and (3) history of concussion, mean number of days since last concussion 631 (95% CI, 505-730). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. MAIN MEASURES: The vestibulo-ocular reflex is a fundamental reflex of the central nervous system that stabilizes the position of the eyes during head movement and adapts when sensory input is altered (the bend of the light on the retina by prism glasses). The prism adaptation measure was the number of throws taken to adapt to wearing prism glasses while throwing balls at a central target. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.84) and the Bland-Altman 95% levels of agreement (lower limit -18.5; 95% CI, -22.4 to -14.6); and upper limit 16.6; 95% CI, 12.7-20.5) reflected good intrarater reliability. Prism adaptation measures were significantly different across groups ( F2,119 = 51.9, P < .001, r = 0.52, power of 90%), with the mean number of throws for youth (aged 11-17 years) in each group as follows: 10 (95% CI, 8-12) no concussion history; 25 (95% CI, 23-27) recent concussion (1-11 days); and 17 (95% CI, 15-20) history of concussion (90-1560 days). CONCLUSION: Use of a prism paradigm as a clinical measurement tool has the potential to alter concussion management in youth. The prism paradigm is objective, is readily translatable to the clinical arena, has minimal associated costs, and is easily administered, reliable, and portable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".