A prospective study of punch biomechanics and cognitive function for amateur boxers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate several biomechanical factors of the head during a sparring session and their link to cognitive function. DESIGN: Instrumented Boxing Headgear (IBH) was used for data collection during four 2 min sparring sessions. Neurocognitive assessment was measured using the ImPACT Concussion management software. A baseline neurocognitive test was obtained from each athlete prior to sparring; two additional tests were obtained and compared with the baseline. SETTING: Male and female amateur boxers. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 30 male and 30 female amateur boxers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Head accelerations (translational and rotational), injury severity indexes (Head Injury Criteria (HIC) and Gadd Severity Index (GSI)) and cognitive function scores. Results Peak translational and rotational acceleration values were 191 g and 17,156 rad/s(2), respectively, for males and 184 g and 13,113 rad/s(2), respectively, for females. The peak HIC and GSI values for males were 1652 and 2292, respectively, and for females 1079 and 1487, respectively. There was no significant difference in the neurocognitive scores between genders. A decrease was exhibited in the delayed memory postbout scores. All other scores either increased or did not significantly decrease when compared with the baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of impacts experienced by both genders were under the threshold for mild head injury. There was a statistically significant difference between peak translational and rotational acceleration, HIC and GSI when comparing genders. When analysing cognitive functions, there was no statistical difference between genders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".