MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390078344 · doi:10.1017/s1355617723007671

4 Extending the 5P Clinical Decision Rule Predicting Concussion Recovery Using an Evidence-Based Assessment Model

2023· article· en· W4390078344 on OpenAlexaff
Dean R Allen, Peter Κ. Isquith, Roger Zemek, Gérard A. Gioia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalResearch CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionLogistic regressionMedicineTraumatic brain injuryDemographicsCohortRetrospective cohort studyPoison controlInjury preventionPhysical therapyEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineDemographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Construction of predictive algorithms of concussion symptom recovery at 4 and 12 weeks post-injury using an evidence-based assessment (EBA) model to guide clinical decision-making, extending the 2016 5P decision rule. Participants and Methods: Children and adolescents, ages 8-18 (n=1,551; mean age=12.78; 62% male), followed over 12 weeks in the prospective multicenter cohort study (Predicting Persistent Post-Concussive Problems in Pediatrics, 5P; Zemek et al., 2016). The age-specific PostConcussion Symptom Inventory (PCSI) (8-12, 17 items; 1318 years, 20 items) was completed at six timepoints from the ED and at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12-weeks post-injury. Logistic regression analysis was applied to the set of key variables including the PCSI Total Retrospective-Adjusted PostInjury Difference (RAPID) scores, patient demographics and pre-injury history, and injury characteristics to predict participant recovery status (Recovered, Not Recovered) at the 4- and 12-week endpoints. The resulting recovery-predictive equations identified the significant sets of variables with symptom scores at four successive post-injury timepoints (ED, 1, 2, 4 weeks). Logistic Regression Threshold values were established at the 90th CI against which individual patient data was applied to determine recovery status. Participants with sub-threshold sums were deemed recovered at the target endpoint (4- or 12-weeks post-injury). Results: A total of 19 predictive equations were generated for the two age groups across the recovery timeline. Four sets of equations were developed to predict symptom recovery status at 4-weeks post-injury for the two age groups (8-12 AUC=0.679-0.884; 13-18 AUC=0.752-0.909). Prediction of symptom recovery status at 12-weeks post-injury yielded six equations for the 8-12 age group (AUC=0.723-0.825), and five equations for the 13-18 age group (AUC=0.724-0.887). Total PCSI RAPID score was identified as a significant variable in each of these 19 equations. Participant sex was identified as significant in 18 of the 19 constructed equations. Other variables that were identified as significant at varying timepoints included age, pre-injury history of learning disability and migraines, and an early post-injury sign in the ED (answering questions more slowly than usual). Examples of the equations include: Week 1 predicting symptom recovery status at 4-weeks: 8-12 yr group-(Sex*.802)+(week 1 Total RAPID Score*.142)+(Age2* .053)+(-3.851) with AUC=0.808; 13-18 yr group-(Sex*.980)+(Week 1 Total RAPID Score*.071)+(-3.261) with AUC=0.861. Conclusions: Clinicians’ management of the concussion recovery of children and adolescents can benefit from EBA guidance. The 5P dataset (Zemek et al., 2016) provides an important window into “typical” and “atypical” recovery trajectories, establishing an initial predictive decision rule for a 4-week recovery endpoint, at the ED timepoint only, reporting AUC=0.69. The current study extends the prediction modeling using successive post-injury timepoints reflecting a typical management timeline. Symptom reports from both 1- and 2-weeks post injury with patient demographics/ history predicted symptom recovery status at 4- and 12-weeks post-injury, significantly improve predictive accuracy over the ED timepoint alone. These predictive equations, when applied to the individual patient, can serve to assist the clinician’s understanding of the patients’ recovery trajectory, i.e., on track for a typical or atypical recovery, further informing the intervention strategy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.389
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207