Feasibility and Reliability of a Novel Game-Based Test of Neurological Function in Youth: The Equilibrium Test Battery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An estimated 11% of Canadian adolescents will sustain a sport-related concussion each year. However, diagnostic tools to detect and monitor concussive outcomes are limited. Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and test-retest reliability of the Highmark Interactive Equilibrium (HIEQ) test battery in uninjured adolescents. Study Design: Observational study with repeated measurements. Methods: Participants completed the HIEQ test battery, a game-based platform on an iPad application, that assesses balance, cognitive function, and visual function, for up to 15 consecutive school days in a group classroom setting. Feasibility for use of the HIEQ was evaluated by (1) recruitment rates; (2) retention rates; (3) test completion without assistance; and (4) adverse events. Test-retest reliability was examined using Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients comparing the first and second and second and third obtained scores. Reliability across multiple baseline assessments was also analyzed using intraclass correlations for the second to sixth and seventh to eleventh obtained scores. Results: Fifty-five uninjured high school students (31 females and 24 males, mean age = 16.24 [1.09]) from three high schools participated in the study. Three participants (5%) completed all 15 days of testing, and 73% completed at least 10 of 15 test days. No adverse events were reported. Although the test was feasible, all subtests showed wide limits of agreement from first to second and from second to third testing occasions. Results indicate poor-to-moderate reliability (<0.50 to 0.75) across those intervals, as well as across the second to sixth and seventh to eleventh testing occasions. Conclusion: The HIEQ is feasible in high school students; however, performance was characterized by wide limits of agreement and poor-to-moderate reliability across test occasions. Future evaluation of the HIEQ in visual and auditory distraction free individual testing settings is warranted. Level of Evidence: Level 3.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".