Comparison of Mouth Guard Designs and Concussion Prevention in Contact Sports
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of the WIPSS mouth guard to other currently used mouth guards in the prevention of concussion injuries in athletes participating in varsity football and rugby. DESIGN: : Multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial comparing the WIPSS Brain-Pad mouth guard against the standard use mouth guard of choice. Teams were monitored by their respective athletic therapist, trainer, or sports physician for 1 playing season to diagnose and record incident concussion injuries and dental trauma. Concussion symptoms were also recorded at the time of injury. SETTING: Five Ontario universities. PARTICIPANTS: University male football (394) and university male (129) and female (123) rugby athletes reporting to 2003 fall training camps. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was the incidence of any diagnosed concussion events during the 2003 playing season as defined by the American Academy of Neurology Concussion Guidelines. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of dental trauma events and observed concussion symptoms. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the number of concussions observed between the intervention and control arms of this trial (P = 0.79; odds ratio, 1.06, in favor of controls; 95% CI, 0.51, <<1.61). No dental trauma events occurred. The 5 most common symptoms experienced by concussed athletes were dizziness, general headache, nausea, loss of visual focus, and personality changes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, concussion rates were not significantly different for varsity football and rugby players who wore the WIPSS Brain-Pad mouth guard compared with other types of mouth guards.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it