The effect of helmets on the risk of head and neck injuries among skiers and snowboarders: a meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevention of head injuries in alpine activities has focused on helmets. However, no systematic review has examined the effect of helmets on head and neck injuries among skiers and snowboarders. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, conference proceedings and reference lists using a combination of the key words "head injury or head trauma," "helmet" and "skiing or snowboarding." We included studies that used a control group; compared skiers or snowboarders with and without helmets; and measured at least one objectively quantified outcome (e.g., head injury, and neck or cervical injury). RESULTS: We included 10 case-control, 1 case-control/case-crossover and 1 cohort study in our analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) indicated that skiers and snowboarders with a helmet were significantly less likely than those without a helmet to have a head injury (OR 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.79). The result was similar for studies that used controls without an injury (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36-0.92), those that used controls with an injury other than a head or neck injury (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.80) and studies that included children under the age of 13 years (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.59). Helmets were not associated with an increased risk of neck injury (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72-1.09). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that helmets reduce the risk of head injury among skiers and snowboarders with no evidence of an increased risk of neck 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it