MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390079105 · doi:10.1017/s1355617723002564

52 Developing and Calibrating a Sex-Specific Psychiatric Screener within the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale

2023· article· en· W4390079105 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brandon G Zuccato, Justin E. Karr, Eric O. Ingram, Isabelle Messa, Kassandra Korcsog, Christopher A. Abeare

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionIrritabilityAnxietyDepression (economics)PsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineNeuropsychologyAthletesPsychologyCognitionPhysical therapyPoison controlInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Pre- and post-morbid mental health conditions can prolong recovery from concussion and are generally detrimental to athletic performance and quality of life. If psychiatric conditions can be identified in athletes at the time of baseline testing, psychological/psychiatric intervention can be implemented to prevent these complications. Given the time constraints on neuropsychological baseline testing, it is important to have time-efficient screening measures. As such, the purpose of this study was to develop and calibrate a psychiatric screening measure within the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS) from the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT), which is commonly administered to athletes at baseline, thereby “killing two birds with one stone”: (1) screening for psychiatric conditions and (2) obtaining a baseline measurement of concussion-like symptoms. Participants and Methods: Participants were 278 undergraduate students from a Canadian university with a mean age of 21.87 years (SD=4.87, range=18 to 52) and a sex composition of 64% females (n=179, Age: M=21.29 years-old, SD=4.34, range: 18 to 52) and 36% males (n=179, Age: M=22.93 years-old, SD=5.57, range: 18 to 50). Participants were a convenience sample collected via online survey platform in exchange for bonus points toward courses through a participant pool system between January and July 2021. The psychiatric screener consisted of the affective subscale from the PCSS (irritability, sadness, feeling more emotional, nervousness) and the criterion measure was the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-42). Statistical analyses were conducted in R v.4.3 and included confirmatory factor analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. Although a balance was sought between sensitivity and specificity, the former was prioritized given that this is intended as a screening measure. Males and females were analyzed separately as females tend to report more symptoms than males. Mild, moderate, and severe elevations were predicted for depression, anxiety, and stress, based on standard DASS cutoffs. Results: The CFA analyses revealed good fit for both the PCSS (CFI=.992; TLI=.991; RMSEA=.053; SRMR=.066) and DASS (CFI=.995; TLI=.995; RMSEA=.053; SRMR=.065) models. Cutoffs of >3, >4, and >8 (SENS= .77-.80, SPEC= .52-.83) optimally classified males as having mild, moderate, and severe depression, respectively; and cutoffs of >8, >8, and >9 (SENS= .79-.83, SPEC= .63-.67) optimally classified females as having mild, moderate, and severe depression, respectively. A cutoff of >2 (SENS= .78-.81, SPEC= .35-.39) optimally classified males as having both mild and moderate anxiety (insufficient n in severe group); and >7, >8, and >9 (SENS= .80-.85, SPEC= .63-.68) optimally classified females as having mild, moderate, and severe anxiety. Cutoffs of >5and >8(SENS= .80-.86, SPEC= .70-.85) were optimal for detecting mild and moderate stress in males (insufficient n in severe group); and >8, >8, and >9 (SENS= .80.89, SPEC= .60-.75) were optimal in females. Conclusions: The affective subscale within the PCSS operates well as a psychiatric screening measure. In general, females had higher cutoffs and the cutoffs for mild and moderate levels of the conditions tended to be similar. Males were less onsistent, with cutoffs varying widely depending on the construct and severity.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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