MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416747039 · doi:10.34719/kmnz1317

Invalidity Rates of Baseline ImPACT Concussion Assessments in High School Athletes with Disabilities

2025· article· W4416747039 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kiera Glodowski, Troy Furutani, Nathan M. Murata, Allison Tsuchida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionAthletesBaseline (sea)AutismLearning disabilityTest (biology)Injury preventionOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invalidity Rates of Baseline ImPACT Concussion Assessments in High School Athletes with Disabilities Introduction The Immediate Postconcussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) is the most common computerized concussion assessment tool (Dessy, 2017). Previous studies showed higher rates of invalid baselines in individuals with autism, learning disabilities (LD) and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Maietta, 2021). Characteristics of these disabilities can resemble concussion symptoms which may complicate the evaluation process and diagnosis of concussion, a health concern in athletes (Harmon, 2013). This study aims to investigate invalidity rates of baseline ImPACT assessments among disability groups in high school athletes to explore its use in this population. Methodology This retrospective study analysed ImPACT (versions 4.0 & up) baseline assessments between 2021-2023 from 62 high schools in Hawai'i. Participants were divided into groups based on self-reported disability: No disability, LD, ADHD, dyslexia, autism and accompanying neurodevelopmental disorders (ND), dyslexia and ADHD, LD with ADHD and dyslexia. ImPACT software automatically flags invalid assessments upon completion. Invalidity rates were calculated for each disability group and a chi-squared(χ²) goodness of fit test was completed to determine invalidity rates(%) between disability groups. Results 25,275 participants (female=9,926, male=15,349) aged 15.35±1.14 were included. χ² analysis revealed significant association between invalid baselines and disability groups [χ² (7, n=25275) =70.753, p<.001]. Overall invalidity rate for all athletes was 7.15%. Individuals with LD (13.71%) and autism with accompanying ND’s (13.1%) had the highest rate of invalid baseline tests across groups. Conclusions Athletes with self-reported disabilities and ND’s elicit higher rates of invalid ImPACT baseline assessments potentially impacting healthcare. Instruments with increased sensitivity should be validated for use in individuals with disabilities. References Dessy, A. M., Yuk, F. J., Maniya, A. Y., Gometz, A., Rasouli, J. J., Lovell, M. R., & Choudhri, T. F. (2017). Review of assessment scales for diagnosing and monitoring sports-related concussion. Cureus, 9(12), e1922. Harmon, K. G., Drezner, J., Gammons, M., Guskiewicz, K., Halstead, M., Herring, S., Kutcher, J., Pana, A., Putukian, M., Roberts, W., & American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (2013). American Medical Society for Sports Medicine position statement: concussion in sport. Clinical journal of sport medicine: official journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine, 23(1), 1–18. Maietta, J. E., Barchard, K. A., Kuwabara, H. C., Donohue, B. D., Ross, S. R., Kinsora, T. F., & Allen, D. N. (2021). Influence of special education, ADHD, autism, and learning disorders on ImPACT validity scores in high school athletes. Journal

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→