Trends in reporting of mechanisms and incidence of hip injuries in males playing minor ice hockey in Canada: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a noted increase in the diagnosis and reporting of sporting hip injuries and conditions in the medical literature but reporting at the minor hockey level is unknown. The purpose of this study is to investigate the trend of reporting hip injuries in amateur ice hockey players in Canada with a focus on injury type and mechanism. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Hockey Canada insurance database was performed and data on ice hockey hip injuries reported between January 2005 and June 2011 were collected. The study population included all male hockey players from Peewee (aged 11-12 years) to Senior (aged 20+ years) participating in amateur level competition sanctioned by Hockey Canada. Reported cases of ice hockey hip injuries were analyzed according to age, mechanism of injury, and injury subtype. Annual injury reporting rates were determined and using a linear regression analysis trended to determine the change in ice hockey hip injury reporting rate over time. RESULTS: One hundred and six cases of ice hockey-related hip injuries were reported in total. The majority of injuries (75.5%) occurred in players aged 15-20 years playing at the Junior level. Most injuries were caused by a noncontact mechanism (40.6%) and strains were the most common subtype (50.0%). From 2005 to 2010, the number of reported hip injuries increased by 5.31 cases per year and the rate of reported hip injury per 1,000 registered players increased by 0.02 cases annually. CONCLUSION: Reporting of hip injuries in amateur ice hockey players is increasing. A more accurate injury reporting system is critical for future epidemiologic studies to accurately document the rate and mechanism of hip injury in amateur ice hockey players.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".