3.22 Effect of migraine symptom phenotype on symptom exacerbation with physical and cognitive activity and symptom limited treadmill test following sport-related concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Evaluate the association between Migraine symptom Phenotype (MP) and 1) physical or cognitive symptom exacerbation and 2) a symptom-limited Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT) in youth and adults diagnosed with a sport related concussion (SRC). Design Cross-sectional. Setting Acute Sport Concussion Clinic at the University of Calgary. Participants A convenience sample of 314 patients [median age 18 (range 13–60), 49.04% female] diagnosed with SRC by a sport medicine physician. Seventy-three (23.25%) participants [median age 21.00 (range 13–59 years), 52.05% females] completed the BCTT. Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors) Patient-reported symptoms on the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT3/5). Following the initial clinical assessment, a subset of patients completed the BCTT. Outcome Measures MP based on SCAT3/5 symptoms (headache >3/6 with nausea >1/6 or light and noise sensitivity >1/6), Kamins et al. (2021); symptom exacerbation with physical or cognitive exertion; BCTT. Main Results Of 314 participants, 38.22% were classified with MP. Symptom exacerbation with physical and cognitive exertion was reported in 81.73% and 80.51% of patients, respectively. Participants with MP had a 4.76 (95% CI; 2.16–10.47) and 9.12 (95% CI; 3.53–23.57) greater odds of symptom exacerbation with physical and cognitive activity, respectively. Of those who completed the BCTT, a symptom-limited BCTT occurred in 58 participants (79.45%). Participants with MP had a 2.10 (95% CI; 0.58–7.59) greater odds of a symptom-limited BCTT than those without MP. Conclusions Participants classified as symptom-based MP had a greater odds of reporting symptom exacerbation with physical or cognitive activity and a symptom-limited BCTT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".