Determining the Agreement Between Common Measures Related to Vestibulo-ocular Reflex Function After a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To (1) determine the level of agreement between symptom provocation and performance-based tests of vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) function after pediatric mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and (2) describe the level of symptom provocation induced by a VOR task in individuals with and without cervical findings. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: This study was conducted at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Participants: A total of 101 participants (N=101) aged 6-18 years within 3 weeks of mTBI diagnosis were included (54.5% female; mean age, 13.92±2.63 years; mean time since injury at assessment, 18.26±6.16 days). Interventions: None. Main Outcome Measures: (cervical flexion-rotation test, range of motion test, self-reported neck pain). Agreement was evaluated using Cohen's κ statistic. Results: No outcomes demonstrated agreement with symptom provocation (κ=-0.15 to 0.14). Fair agreement demonstrated between clinician-observed VOR performance and HTT (κ=0.32), with little to no agreement demonstrated between other measures. Proportions reporting test-induced dizziness and headache were greater among individuals with cervical findings (29.1%-41.8%) than without (2.3%-6.8%). Conclusions: Findings support that symptom provocation and performance-based tests measure different constructs and thus have distinct roles when assessing VOR function. Findings suggest results from measures of symptom provocation may be influenced by coexisting cervical impairments, underlining the value of assessing for cervical injury after pediatric mTBI.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".