MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2050995292 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-092101

Comparative incidence of concussion and return to play time in two Canadian minor hockey groups over the 2011–2012 season

2013· article· en· W2050995292 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D J Rhine, T Lamvohee

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionIncidence (geometry)MedicinePhysical therapyPoison controlInjury preventionEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Report concussion incidence and Return to Play (RTP) times over a minor hockey season (2011–12) in two sub-groups, a community hockey association (A) and a private hockey academy (B). Design Retrospective, cohort study. Setting Elite hockey players from A and B. Subjects 354 subjects in two sub-groups. A: 222 (191 Males/31 Females). B: 132 (114 Males/18 Females). Intervention Subjects were educated and baseline tested at the start of the 2011–12 season using Symptom Inventory, SCAT2, BESS and neuro-cognitive testing. The Zurich 2008 RTP protocol was utilised. Subjects were followed with serial testing until recovered to baseline or within 5% of baseline. Medical authorisation was given to RTP. Outcome Measures The incidence of concussion and the average RTP in the two groups. Results A. Concussion incidence – Overall 23% ▸ A 18% (n=39) ▸ B 32% (n=42) B. RTP (Average No. Days to RTP) Overall: 22 ▸ A: 27 ▸ B: 14 Conclusions Concussion incidence approximated that reported by Echlin. The higher incidence in the B group reflects the experience of coaches and full-time athletic therapists in recognising and dealing with concussions, and a willingness to report concussion injury. Overall RTP time was longer in both groups than the previously reported 12.8 days average. For B, the RTP time was less than A (14 vs 27 days), reflecting daily access to supportive care (athletic therapists and physician), daily access to the gym for Steps 2 and 3, and daily ice-time for Steps 4 and 5 of the RTP protocol.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→