3.21 Association of early vs. late care seeking for sport-related concussion in adolescent athletes: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the association between early vs. late presentation to a concussion management clinic following sport-related concussion (SRC) and time-to-recovery among adolescent Canadian athletes. Design Historical cohort study. Setting Canadian community concussion management clinics. Participants Canadian male and female athletes aged 12–18 presenting for care after SRC (n=4606). Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors) The exposure was time of clinic presentation after SRC, defined as early (0–7 days) or late (8–28 days). Outcome Measures The outcome was time-to-recovery related to SRC (defined as clinician clearance to return to sport). Propensity scores were first derived from logistic regression with early versus late clinic presentation as the outcome. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was then used to model the relationship between early versus late clinic presentation and time-to-recovery, while including the propensity score to adjust for confounding. The association was expressed using hazard rate ratios (HRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main Results Early (vs. late) presentation to a concussion management clinic following SRC was associated with time-to-recovery (adjusted HRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.32). This association was consistent within each quintile of propensity score. Median time to recovery was 18 versus 22-days in the early and late groups, respectively. Conclusions Athletes with SRC have favourable recovery trajectories regardless of presentation time. Recovery may be quicker with earlier presentation which can lead to faster return to school and sport.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".