Macpherson A, Rothman L, Howard A. Body-Checking Rules and Childhood Injuries in Ice Hockey. PEDIATRICS 2006;117:e143–e147.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Several errors appeared in the article by Macpherson et al, titled “Body-Checking Rules and Childhood Injuries in Ice Hockey” that was published in the February 2006 issue of Pediatrics Electronic Pages (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1163). Due to a coding error, the youngest and oldest age groups were inverted affecting the odds ratios, confidence intervals, and tables throughout the text. The following changes should be noted:Page e143, Abstract, Results section should read as follows:“Results: Of the 4736 hockey injuries, 3006 (63%) were in Ontario and 1730 (37%) were in Quebec. Most of the injuries occurred in areas where checking was allowed (3618 [76.4%]). At ages 10 to 13, players had significantly greater odds of suffering a checking injury where checking was allowed (odds ratio [OR]: 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21–3.18). Players in this age group were also more likely to suffer a concussion (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.93–2.52) or a fracture (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00–1.47) where checking was allowed. Among older players, when checking was allowed in both provinces, there were higher odds (OR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.94–1.33) of receiving a checking injury in the province that had introduced checking at a younger age, suggesting there is no protective effect from learning to check earlier.”Page e145, column 1, Results section, line 3 should read as follows:“Where checking was allowed, there were 3618 injuries.”Page e145, column 2, Results section, lines 2–5 should read as follows:“For example, for 10- and 11-year olds, 41% of the injuries were checking related where checking was allowed compared with 19% where checking was not allowed.”Page e145, column 2, Results section, lines 8–15 should read as follows:“The resulting OR for sustaining a checking injury (compared with a nonchecking injury) in areas in which checking was allowed was 2.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21–3.18). Slightly higher proportions of concussions (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.92–2.53) and significantly more fractures (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00–1.47) were also observed in jurisdictions in which checking was allowed.”Page e145, column 2, Results section, lines 20–25 should read as follows:“Older players in Ontario were more likely to have received a checking injury (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.94–1.32). There was no significant difference in the proportion of concussions in the age group (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 0.79–2.35), nor in proportion of fractures (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.95–1.42).”Page e145, Table 1 should read as follows:Page e146, Table 2 should read as follows:The authors ensure that the changes do not affect the conclusions or implications for injury prevention.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,022 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».