MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414994694 · doi:10.1097/htr.0000000000001125

Concussion Classification in a Multicenter Patient Cohort: The Updated ACRM Diagnostic Criteria and Concordance With Physician Impression of Injury

2025· article· en· W4414994694 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew B. Dodd, Noah D. Silverberg, Keith Owen Yeates, Kitty Chen, Stan Kutcher, Richard Webster, Sharon Johnston, Miguel Cortel-LeBlanc, Ivan Terekhov, Roger Zemek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceConcussionImpressionMulticenter studyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM) substantially revised its diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in 2023, encompassing acute symptoms and positive clinical and laboratory examinations, in addition to immediate signs of injury. This study aimed to apply these criteria to a large, diverse cohort and compare the diagnostic determination to physician impression of injury. SETTING: A network of 3 concussion specialty clinics in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1447 patients (61.0% female; median age = 26 years [IQR: 15-42 years, range: 3-87 years]; days post-injury (median: 23 IQR: [13-47, 0-349]) completed initial evaluations between June 28, 2024 and June 18, 2025. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. MAIN MEASURES: Occurrence rates were calculated, and binary/ordinal logistic regressions were applied to determine if individual criterion endorsement or diagnostic outcome ("Definite," "Suspected," and "No mTBI") was associated with age, sex, symptoms at clinical presentation, or days post-injury. Additionally, concordance with physician impression was assessed similarly. RESULTS: Criteria for signs, symptoms, and clinical examinations were all more likely to be endorsed with increasing symptom severity at presentation, as was an ACRM diagnostic outcome of definite mTBI. Shorter time post-injury was associated with positive clinical/laboratory examinations and the presence of confounding factors, in addition to a definite diagnostic outcome. A total of 18.4% of cases were classified less definitively as mTBI by physician impression than by the updated ACRM diagnosis, with physicians tending toward underdiagnosis, particularly in patients reporting lower current symptom severity. CONCLUSION: Use of the ACRM criteria clinically to determine if an injury qualifies as mTBI may be less susceptible to bias from ongoing symptom reporting than the physician impression of the injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Head Trauma RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207