MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021344380 · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1163

Body-Checking Rules and Childhood Injuries in Ice Hockey

2006· article· en· W2021344380 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alison Macpherson, Linda Rothman, Andrew Howard

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesInstitute of Population and Public HealthYork University
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsIce hockeyMedicineOdds ratioInjury preventionPoison controlConfidence intervalOddsOccupational safety and healthConcussionSuicide preventionDemographyMedical emergencyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLogistic regressionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Body checking is the predominant mechanism of youth ice hockey injuries. The Canadian Hockey Association has allowed body checking from ages 12 to 13 (peewee level) and up. One Canadian province (Ontario) introduced body checking at ages 10 to 11 (atom level) in the competitive leagues, whereas in Quebec body checking has only been allowed at ages 14 to 15 (bantam Level). The purpose of this study was to compare body-checking injuries, fractures, and concussions in boys' minor hockey between jurisdictions in which checking is allowed and jurisdictions in which body checking is not allowed. METHODS: Data from the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) were used to characterize children's ice hockey injuries from September 1995 to the end of August 2002. Children treated at CHIRPP hospitals in areas in which checking was allowed were compared with children in areas in which checking was not allowed. RESULTS: Of the 4736 hockey injuries, 3006 (63%) were in Ontario and 1730 (37%) were in Quebec. Most of the injuries occurred in areas in which checking was allowed (3618 [76.4%]) [corrected] At ages 10 to 13, players had significantly greater odds of suffering a checking injury where checking was allowed (odds ratio [OR]: 2.65 [corrected]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21[corrected]-3.18 [corrected]). Players in this age group were also more likely to suffer a concussion (OR: 1.53 [corrected]; 95% CI: 0.93 [corrected]-2.52 [corrected]) or fracture (OR: 1.20 [corrected]; 95% CI: 1.00 [corrected]-1.47) where checking was allowed. Among older players, when checking was allowed in both provinces, there were higher odds (OR: 1.1 [corrected]; 95% CI: 0.94 [corrected]-1.33 [corrected]) of receiving a checking injury in the province that had introduced checking at a younger age, suggesting that there is no protective effect from learning to check earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Increased injuries attributable to checking were observed where checking was allowed. This study supports policies that disallow body checking to reduce ice hockey injuries in children.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations112
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207