MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112252480 · doi:10.1093/aje/kwg050

Injury Risk in Men's Canada West University Football

2003· article· en· W2112252480 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brent Hagel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsConfidence intervalMedicinePoisson regressionRelative riskFootballRate ratioPoison controlInjury preventionPhysical therapyHead and neckDemographySurgeryEmergency medicineInternal medicinePopulationGeographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injury and participation information was collected over 5 years (1993-1997) on varsity men's football players in the Canada West Universities Athletic Association. The locations of acute time-loss injuries or neurologic injures were coded as head and neck, upper extremity (shoulder to hand), or lower extremity (hip to foot). Poisson regression-based generalized estimating equations were used to estimate rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Injury rates were higher during games as compared with practice periods (for the head and neck, rate ratio (RR) = 9.75 (95% confidence interval (CI): 7.50, 12.67); for upper extremities, RR = 5.76 (95% CI: 4.46, 7.45); and for lower extremities, RR = 7.06 (95% CI: 6.03, 8.25)). In dry-field game situations, head and neck injury rates were 1.59 times higher on artificial turf than on natural grass (95% CI: 1.04, 2.42). Lower extremity game injury rates were higher on artificial turf than on natural grass under both dry (RR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.35, 2.48) and wet (RR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.18, 4.52) field conditions. Injury rates increased with every additional year of participation. Past injury increased the rate of subsequent injury. The effect of an artificial field surface may be related to infrequent use. Risk factors for injury included participation in a game, playing on artificial turf, being a veteran player, and having a past 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations53
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207