Patterns of Mouthguard Utilization Among Atom and Pee Wee Minor Ice Hockey Players: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if youth hockey players wear their mouthguards properly, and if not, why? DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. SETTING: Tecumseh Shoreline Minor Hockey Association, Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada, during the 2007-2008 season. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were 180 travel hockey players of the Tecumseh Shoreline Minor Hockey Association at the Atom or Pee Wee level (aged 9-12 y) or their competitors. ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS: Players were asked to complete a survey addressing mouthguard wear under their coach's supervision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The type of mouthguard, whether mouthguards were worn at all and worn properly, and the reasons for noncompliance. The incidence of concussion and association to mouthguard-wearing tendencies were also assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent [95% confidence interval (CI), 60.4%-74.5%] of subjects always wore their mouthguards, but only 31.7% (95% CI, 25.0%-39.0%) wore them properly during games and 51.1% (95% CI, 43.6%-58.6%) during practice. Custom-made mouthguards were most likely to be worn properly, followed by boil-and-bite and stock-type guards. Younger players wore mouthguards more consistently than older players (P < 0.01). Reasons for not wearing the guard included the following: 43.0% (95% CI, 35.4%-50.4%) of subjects felt it made talking difficult, 27.4% (95% CI, 20.9%-34.3%) felt it uncomfortable, 23.9% (95% CI, 17.9%-30.8%) felt it made breathing difficult, and 12.4% (95% CI, 8.3%-17.9%) thought it did not fit correctly. The incidence of concussion was 17.8%, but the study was underpowered for any association with mouthguard type. CONCLUSIONS: Even when mouthguards are mandated to be worn in a children's travel hockey league, young players self-report that they routinely fail to wear them properly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".