MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis and Evolution of Head Injury in Football

2004· review· en· W1982095494 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael L. Levy, Burak M. Ozgur, Cherisse Berry, Henry E. Aryan, Michael L.J. Apuzzo

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFootballHead injuryHead (geology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review head injury in football through historical, anatomic, and physiological analysis. METHODS: We obtained data from a thorough review of the literature. RESULTS: The reported incidence of concussion among high school football players dropped from 19% in 1983 to 4% in 1999. During the 1997 Canadian Football League season, players with a previous loss of consciousness in football were 6.15 times more likely to experience a concussion than players without a previous loss of consciousness (P < 0.05). Players with a previous concussion in football were 5.10 times more likely to experience a concussion than players without a previous concussion (P = 0.0001). With the implementation of National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standards, fatalities decreased by 74% and serious head injuries decreased from 4.25 per 100,000 to 0.68 per 100,000. CONCLUSION: Significant declines in both the incidence and severity of head injury have been observed. The enhanced safety records in football can be attributed to the application of more stringent tackling regulations as well as the evolving football helmet. The role of a neurosurgeon is critical in further head injury prevention and guidelines in sport.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207