Brachial Neuropraxia in Canadian Atlantic University Sport Football Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the incidence of brachial neuropraxia (stingers) among varsity football players during the 2010 season; (2) to determine if associations exist between sustaining a stinger and previous history of stingers, years played, equipment, age, body mass index (BMI), and conditioning; and (3) to provide descriptive statistics regarding stingers and position played, symptoms, activity during injury, mechanism of tackling, and reporting of stingers. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Canadian Atlantic University Sport football league. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty-four players. ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS: Two written questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of players experiencing stingers that occurred during the 2010 season. RESULTS: The incidence was 26% (64 of 244). A multivariate analysis revealed that previous history of a stinger (P < 0.0001) and years played (P = 0.0018) were associated with sustaining a stinger. There was no statistically significant effect related to additional equipment, a player's age, BMI, or participation in a strength training program. Linebackers, offensive linemen, and wide receivers had the highest incidence of stingers. The most frequent symptoms reported were tingling, numbness, burning, and weakness. Of all stingers sustained, only 59% (38 of 64) were reported to medical staff. CONCLUSIONS: Stingers are a common injury in Canadian university football and are underreported to medical staff. Education of players at increased risk is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".