Differences In Motor And Cognitive Outcomes Between Healthy Controls And Individuals With Persistent Post-Concussion Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been reported that 10-15% of individuals who sustain a mild traumatic brain injury experience persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS) lasting greater than three months post-injury. Individuals experiencing PPCS have reported greater number and severity of symptoms, and have greater corticospinal inhibition, lower gait scores, and worse neurocognitive performance compared to healthy controls. However, these separate findings come from different studies, as few studies have quantified this multifaceted condition across multiple domains of functional and physiological outcomes. PURPOSE: To determine the effects of PPCS on motor and cognitive performance compared to healthy controls. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was employed. Twelve individuals with PPCS (19.5 ± 21.2 months post injury, 25.6 ± 5.5 years; 8 F) were recruited from Parkwood Institute’s Acquired Brain Injury Outpatient program. Twelve uninjured individuals who were age-, height-, and weight-matched (23.4 ± 3.2 years; 7 F) also participated in the study as controls. Outcome measures included i) symptom reporting - Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire, ii) neurophysiology - transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), iii) neurocognitive status - Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, and iv) gait - Functional Gait Assessment. RESULTS: The PPCS group reported a significantly greater number (13.6 ± 3.0) and severity (34.0 ± 14.9) of symptoms compared to the control group (1.92 ± 4.2 and 3.83 ± 9.1, respectively; p < 0.001). The PPCS group had significantly greater corticospinal inhibition (150.5 ± 38.3 ms), measured through TMS, compared to controls (90.7 ± 18.0 ms; p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in overall neurocognitive scores between groups (PPCS: 89.6 ± 15.4; Control: 97.8 ± 10.3; p = 0.14). Finally, functional gait scores were significantly lower in the PPCS group (26.8 ± 3.4) compared to controls (29.3 ± 0.7; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: As expected, the PPCS group demonstrated a greater number and severity of symptoms compared to the control group. Although cognitive scores showed no significant differences between groups, the PPCS group showed more marked deficits in motor function, as demonstrated by greater corticospinal inhibition and lower gait scores. Lawson Internal Research Fund (IRF-25-20); Parkwood Institute Research-Student Endowment (PIRSE#:LRI7764458)
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".