What factors increase the risk of concussion in elite youth ice hockey players?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the risk of concussion amongst elite youth male and female ice hockey players. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Community ice rinks and sport medicine clinics. Participants 764 Bantam (12–14 years) and Midget (15–17 years) ice hockey players. Assessment of Risk Factors: 743 players completed baseline SCAT2 testing (2011/2012 season). Age group, sex, previous concussion history, Total Symptoms Score (TSS), Balance Error Score (BES), Standardised Assessment of Concussion (SAC) Score and SCAT2 Total Score at baseline were evaluated as potential risk factors. Higher scores indicate greater impairment or symptoms. Main Outcome Measurements Players with a suspected concussion were assessed by a team therapist and referred to a sport medicine physician. Results Multivariate Poisson Regression analyses, adjusted for cluster by team, were used to estimate concussion risk ratios (RR). The RR for Bantam players with previous concussion history was 1.15 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.90) and for Midget players with previous concussion history was 2.83 (95% CI 1.69 to 4.72) compared to players in the same age group with no previous concussion history. The RR for players with baseline TSS and SCAT2 Total Score in the lowest 25%ile were 1.54 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.20) and 1.40 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.90), respectively, compared to those in the upper 75%ile. Sex, BES and SAC score were not predictive of concussion. Conclusions There is a greater risk of concussion in elite ice hockey players 15–17 years old with a previous history of concussion. Baseline TSS and SCAT2 Total Score in the lowest 25%ile are also predictive of concussion. Acknowledgements The University of Calgary Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre is one of the International Research Centres for Prevention of Injury and Protection of Athlete Health supported by the International Olympic Committee. We also acknowledge the support of Alberta Innovates Health Solutions, the Alberta Children's Hospital Institute for Child and Maternal Health (Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation) and Talisman Energy for their generous support.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".