English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We compared classification accuracy of post-concussion test data against baseline and normative data, accounting for baseline level of performance. Athletes (N = 250) completed baseline and post-concussion ImPACT assessments, within 7 days of concussion (verified by sports medicine professionals and self-reported symptoms). Athletes were classified as "below average," "average," or "above average" at baseline. Change from baseline was calculated using reliable change indices (RCIs) and regression-based measures (RBz), and comparison to normative data was achieved using z-scores. Normative comparisons identified fewer symptomatic, concussed athletes than RCIs and RBz. Both RCIs and RBz consistently identified "impairment" at 1 and 1.5 SD, regardless of baseline level, whereas normative comparisons identified 46-48% fewer athletes performing "above average" at baseline using a cut-off of 1 SD and 36-38% fewer using a cut-off of 1.5 SD. The use of normative comparisons may differentially classify concussed, symptomatic athletes who are outside the "average" range at baseline.

Comparing Post-Concussive Neurocognitive Test Data to Normative Data Presents Risks for Under-Classifying "Above Average" Athletes