7.17 Association between first attempt buffalo concussion treadmill test and days to recovery in 855 children with sport related concussion: a historical cohort study and prognostic factors analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Little is known about the prognostic value of the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT) following the acute phase of sport-related concussion (SRC). We examined the added prognostic value of the BCTT performed 10 to 21 days after SRC in children, in addition to participant, injury and clinical process characteristics on days to recovery. Design Historical clinical cohort study. Setting Approximately 150 Canadian multidisciplinary clinics. Participants We included 855 children (mean age 14 years, range 6–17 years, 44% female) who presented between January 2016, and April 2019. Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors) First attempt BCTT result, participant, injury, and clinical process characteristics. Outcome Measures Days from injury to recovery. Main Results Hierarchal linear regression showed children who were exercise intolerant experienced an increase of 13 days to recovery (95%CI, 9 to 17). Each additional day between SRC and first BCTT was associated with a recovery delay of one day (95%CI, 1 to 2), and prior history of concussion was associated with a recovery delay of 3 days (95%CI, 1 to 5). Participant, injury, and clinical process characteristics, as well as the first attempt BCTT result explained 12% of the variation in recovery time, with 4% accounted for by the BCTT. Conclusions Exercise-intolerance assessed 10 to 21 days after SRC was associated with a recovery delay. However, this was not a strong prognostic factor for days to recovery.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".