MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036350141 · doi:10.1097/jsm.0b013e318172831a

An 18-Year Review of Sports Groin Injuries in the Elite Hockey Player: Clinical Presentation, New Diagnostic Imaging, Treatment, and Results

2008· article· en· W2036350141 on OpenAlexaff
Rea A. Brown, Anthony Mascia, Douglas G. Kinnear, Vincent Lacroix, Liane S. Feldman, David S. Mulder

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGroinSurgeryRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This is a retrospective study of 98 hockey players who underwent 107 surgical explorations for refractory lower abdominal and groin pain that prevented them from playing hockey at an elite level. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review combined with a complete follow-up examination and questionnaire. SETTING: The players were treated in an ambulatory care university tertiary care centre. PATIENTS: A total of 98 elite hockey players underwent 107 surgical groin explorations for intractable groin pain preventing their play. Follow-up was 100%. INTERVENTION: Each player had repair of a tear of the external oblique muscle and fascia reinforced by a Goretex mesh. The ilioinguinal nerve was resected in each patient. OUTCOME MEASURES: There was absence of groin pain on the return to play hockey at an elite level. RESULTS: In all, 97 of 98 players returned to play after the surgical procedures. No morbidity was attributed to division of the ilioinguinal nerve. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical exploration of the involved groin with repair of the torn external oblique muscle and division of the ilioinguinal nerve has resulted in resolution of refractory groin pain and return to play in the elite hockey player. The surgical procedure is associated with a low morbidity. Recent observations on dynamic ultrasound show promise in accurately diagnosing this injury.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Citations75
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207