Neurocognitive Test Performance and Concussion-Like Symptom Reporting Among Adolescent Athletes With Self-Reported Autism on Preseason Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine baseline neurocognitive functioning and symptom reporting among adolescents with self-reported autism. METHOD: Participants in this cross-sectional, observational study were 60,751 adolescents who completed preseason testing. There were 425 students (0.7%) who self-reported an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis. Cognitive functioning was measured by Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing and symptom ratings were obtained from the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale. RESULTS: Groups differed significantly across all neurocognitive composites (p values <.002); effect size magnitudes for most differences were small, though among boys a noteworthy difference on visual memory and among girls differences on verbal memory and visual motor speed composites were noted. Among boys, the ASD group endorsed 21 of the 22 symptoms at a greater rate. Among girls, the ASD group endorsed 11 of the 22 symptoms at a greater rate. Some examples of symptoms that were endorsed at a higher rate among adolescents with self-reported autism were sensitivity to noise (girls: odds ratio, OR = 4.38; boys: OR = 4.99), numbness or tingling (girls: OR = 3.67; boys: OR = 3.25), difficulty remembering (girls: OR = 2.01; boys: OR = 2.49), difficulty concentrating (girls: OR = 1.82; boys: OR = 2.40), sensitivity to light (girls: OR = 1.82; boys: OR = 1.76), sadness (girls: OR = 1.72; boys: OR = 2.56), nervousness (girls: OR = 1.80; boys: OR = 2.27), and feeling more emotional (girls: OR = 1.79; boys: OR = 2.84). CONCLUSION: Students with self-reported autism participating in organized sports likely experience a low degree of functional impairment, on average. If they sustain a concussion, their clinical management should be more intensive to maximize the likelihood of swift and favorable recovery.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".