Precision of the Integrated Cognitive Assessment for the assessment of neurocognitive performance in athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the precision of the Integrated Cognitive Assessment (ICA; Cognetivity Neurosciences Ltd., Vancouver, Canada) test for the assessment of information processing ability in athletes. Thirty-one participants took part in this study. Participants were eligible if they were a current contact sport or non-contact sport athlete, aged 18-40 years, and healthy; having no underlying medical issues that affect participation in sport. Participants were excluded if they were injured, pregnant, or suffering from post-concussion syndrome. Participants performed the ICA test consecutively both before and after a normal training session to simulate resting and post-sport conditions. Precision errors, relationships (Pearson's r), and internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) were calculated for three variables, ICA Index (overall information processing ability), ICA Speed (information processing speed) and ICA Accuracy (information processing accuracy). ICA precision errors [root mean squared-standard deviation, RMS-SD (coefficient of variation, %CV)] pre-sport were: ICA Index: 5.18 (7.14%), ICA Speed: 3.98 (4.64%), and ICA Accuracy: 3.64 (5.00%); and post-sport were ICA Index: 3.96 (4.94%), ICA Speed: 2.14 (2.32%), and ICA Accuracy 3.40 (4.25%). The ICA test demonstrates high in-vivo precision with all variables except ICA Index (7.14%) demonstrating an acceptable precision error of ≤5% %CV.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".