MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072341268 · doi:10.1080/02699050500443707

Is there a relationship between whiplash-associated disorders and concussion in hockey? A preliminary study

2006· article· en· W2072341268 on OpenAlexafffund
Loriann M. Hynes, James P. Dickey

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsConcussionIce hockeyWhiplashPhysical therapyMedicineAthletesInjury preventionPoison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationProspective cohort studyMedical emergencySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the occurrence of whiplash-associated disorders and concussion symptoms in hockey players. RESEARCH DESIGN: Prospective cohort observational study to examine the relationship between whiplash associated disorders and concussion in actual hockey play. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Twenty hockey teams were followed prospectively for one season. Team therapists completed acute and 7-10 day follow-up evaluation questionnaires for all of the players who received either a whiplash mechanism or a concussion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: 183 players were registered for this study; 13 received either a whiplash mechanistic injury or a concussion injury. Initial injuries ranged from WAD I to WAD III and all subjects reported concussion symptoms. Only three subjects reported full resolution of both WAD and concussion symptoms at the 7-10 day follow-up evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between whiplash induced neck injuries and the symptoms of concussion in hockey injuries. Both should be evaluated when dealing with athletes/patients suffering from either 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations59
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207