MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390272493 · doi:10.1177/19417381231217744

Comparison of the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test With a Physiologically Informed Cycle Test: Calgary Concussion Cycle Test

2023· article· en· W4390272493 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lauren N. Miutz, Joel S. Burma, Patrice Brassard, Aaron A. Phillips, Carolyn A. Emery, Jonathan D. Smirl

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaHotchkiss Brain InstituteInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConcussionTreadmillHeart ratePhysical therapyMedicineRating of perceived exertionPsychologyPoison controlBlood pressurePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInjury preventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sport-related concussions are a complex injury requiring multifaceted assessment, including physical exertion. Currently, concussion testing relies primarily on a treadmill-based protocol for assessing exertion-related symptoms in persons after concussion. This study compared a modified cycle protocol (Calgary Concussion Cycle Test [CCCT]) with the clinically adopted standard, the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT), across multiple physiological parameters. Hypothesis: Treadmill and cycle matched workload protocols would produce similar results for cerebral blood velocity, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (P ET CO 2 ), but heart rate (HR) and oxygen consumption (VO 2 ) would be higher on the treadmill than the cycle modality. Study Design: Crossover study design. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: A total of 17 healthy adults (8 men, 9 women; age, 26 ± 3 years; body mass index, 23.8 ± 2.7 kg/m 2 ) completed the BCTT and CCCT protocols, 7 days apart in a randomized order. During both exertional protocols, the physiological parameters measured were middle cerebral artery mean blood velocity (MCAv), MAP, P ET CO 2 , VO 2 , and HR. Analysis of variance with effect size computations, coefficient of variation, and Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement were used to compare exercise tests. Results: The BCTT and CCCT produced comparable results for both male and female participants with no significant differences for average MCAv, MAP, and P ET CO 2 (all P > 0.05; all generalized eta squared [η 2 G ] < 0.02 [negligible]; P value range, 0.29-0.99) between stages. When accounting for exercise stage and modality, VO 2 ( P < 0.01) and HR ( P < 0.01) were higher on the treadmill compared with the cycle. Aside from the final few stages, all physiology measures displayed good-to-excellent agreeability/variability. Conclusion: The CCCT was physiologically similar to the BCTT in terms of MCAv, P ET CO 2 , and MAP; however, HR and VO 2 differed between modalities. Clinical Relevance: Providing a cycle-based modality to exertional testing after injury may increase accessibility to determine symptom thresholds in the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports Health A Multidisciplinary ApproachSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207