A - 35 Subjective and Objective Cognitive Functioning Differences among University Athletes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To investigate the differences between objective cognitive scores and self-reported cognitive symptoms among university athletes. Method A prospective, quasi-experimental design was used for the study. Participants included athletes from a Canadian university over consecutive seasons who were diagnosed with a Sports Related Concussion (SRC) and underwent a post-injury assessment within 24–48 hours. Nineteen male and female athletes (ages M = 25.11, SD = 3.63) with complete data from the Sideline Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT-5) were included. An independent T-test and correlational analysis were used to evaluate the relationship between subjective symptoms (memory and concentration) and objective cognitive functioning. Results There were no significant differences between baseline and post-injury testing on SCAT-5’s learning, concentration and delayed recall tests (p > 0.05) but significant differences between baseline and post-injury symptom report of concentration t(36) = −3.4, p < 0.001 and memory t(36) = −3.0, p < 0.001. At baseline, there was a significant negative correlation between memory total score and the reported cognitive symptoms, (r = −0.61, p < 0.05) and between total cognitive score and self-reported symptom report (r = −61, p < 0.05). In contrast, at post-injury, there were no significant correlations between the memory total score or total cognitive scores and the reported symptoms (r = 0.7, p = 0.79; r = 0.11, p = 0.67). Conclusions Participants endorse a significant increase in symptoms at post injury in spite of no significant changes in their cognitive performance. Psychological distress at injury may impact perceptions of cognitive difficulties.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it