Clinician-Prioritized Measures to Use in a Remote Concussion Assessment: Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little guidance available, and no uniform assessment battery is used in either in-person or remote evaluations of people who are experiencing persistent physical symptoms post concussion. Selecting the most appropriate measures for both in-person and remote physical assessments is challenging because of the lack of expert consensus and guidance. OBJECTIVE: This study used expert consensus processes to identify clinical measures currently used to assess 5 physical domains affected by concussion (neurological examination, cervical spine, vestibular, oculomotor, or effort) and determine the feasibility of applying the identified measures virtually. METHODS: The Delphi approach was used. In the first round, experienced clinicians were surveyed regarding using measures in concussion assessment. In the second round, clinicians reviewed information regarding the psychometric properties of all measures identified in the first round by at least 15% (9/58) of participants. In the second round, experts rank-ordered the measures from most relevant to least relevant based on their clinical experience and documented psychometric properties. A working group of 4 expert clinicians then determined the feasibility of virtually administering the final set of measures. RESULTS: In total, 59 clinicians completed survey round 1 listing all measures they used to assess the physical domains affected by a concussion. The frequency counts of the 146 different measures identified were determined. Further, 33 clinicians completed the second-round survey and rank-ordered 22 measures that met the 15% cutoff criterion retained from round 1. Measures ranked first were coordination, range of motion, vestibular ocular motor screening, and smooth pursuits. These measures were feasible to administer virtually by the working group members; however, modifications for remote administration were recommended, such as adjusting the measurement method. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians ranked assessment of coordination (finger-to-nose test and rapid alternating movement test), cervical spine range of motion, vestibular ocular motor screening, and smooth pursuits as the most relevant measures under their respective domains. Based on expert opinion, these clinical measures are considered feasible to administer for concussion physical examinations in the remote context, with modifications; however, the psychometric properties have yet to be explored. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/40446.
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 | 0.182 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".