Confidence to Return to Play After Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The sequelae of concussion may have psychological consequences that affect an athlete's ability to return to play (RTP). However, confidence of RTP readiness is rarely monitored after a concussion. DESIGN: This study examined the acute and longitudinal implications of concussion on an athlete's confidence to RTP, the relationship between self-reported symptoms and athlete confidence to RTP, and interactions between concussion symptoms, sex, sport type (contact vs noncontact), and confidence to RTP. METHODS: Forty-six college athletes (65% female) sustained a concussion and completed the Injury Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport (I-PRRS) scale at 3 timepoints: within 72 hours of injury (acute), within 72 hours of beginning the RTP protocol (pre-RTP), and within 72 hours of being fully cleared to RTP (post-RTP). RESULTS: Athletes reported acute low confidence after concussion (I-PRRS mean [SD] = 32.59 [18.45]), which improved over time (pre-RTP mean [SD] = 52.11 [9.60]; post-RTP mean [SD] = 57.45 [5.96]). Some athletes returned to competition (post-RTP) with lingering confidence concerns (ie, I-PRRS < 50; 95% CI = 0.03-0.26). Acute symptom severity was associated with worse confidence (P < .001). Sex and sport type (contact vs noncontact) had no relationship with confidence (P = .406, P = .3314, respectively). These results indicate that athletes lack confidence acutely (within 72 h) following concussion. CONCLUSIONS: Although confidence improves over time, those who report greater acute symptoms also exhibit decreased confidence, and some athletes are returning to play with lingering concerns about their confidence (I-PRRS < 50). This preliminary evidence of heterogeneous confidence following concussion encourages the assessment and monitoring of confidence throughout concussion rehabilitation.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".