Incidence of concussion in contact sports: a systematic review of the evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".