MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967918486 · doi:10.1080/0269905031000088869

Incidence of concussion in contact sports: a systematic review of the evidence

2003· review· en· W1967918486 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionIncidence (geometry)MedicinePhysical therapyIce hockeyInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEmergency medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To estimate incidence of concussion in contact sports. RESEARCH DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature on concussion in contact sports. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: MEDLINE was searched from 1985-2000. Older articles cited in retrieved articles were also reviewed. Articles meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria were critically appraised for methodologic quality. The incidence of concussion was recalculated in some cases. RESULTS: Twenty-three out of 63 identified articles were accepted to estimate the risk of concussion. Overall, ice hockey and rugby have the highest incidence of concussion and soccer has the lowest. Male boxers and female taekwondo participants have the highest frequency of concussion at the recreational level. CONCLUSIONS: There are few good studies on the incidence of concussion and limited information on the risk of concussion for females in contact sports. Some common methodological problems were also identified in this literature with the hope of improving future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.314 · 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