A comparison of the epidemiology of ice hockey injuries between male and female youth in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hockey is played by youth across Canada, and its popularity has increased dramatically among females in the past decade. Despite this, there has been little epidemiological research comparing the injury patterns of young female and male hockey players. OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare injuries sustained by female and male youth hockey players using the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program database. METHODS: In the present cross-sectional, retrospective comparison study, the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program database was used to identify all hockey-related injuries sustained by children seven to 17.5 years of age over a 15-year period (January 1995 to December 2009). Exclusion criteria included paid professional players and children with injuries sustained while playing road hockey. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 33,233 children (2637 [7.9%] females and 30,596 [92.1%] males). Compared with males, females reported proportionately more soft tissue injuries (39.8% versus 32.6%; P<0.01) and sprains/strains (21.1% versus 17.6%; P<0.01). Males experienced more fractures (27.1% versus 18.2%; P<0.01) and were most often injured through body checking (42.8% versus 25.7%; P<0.01). Females showed a trend toward increased concussion with age, and were most often injured through collisions (28.6% versus 24.6%; P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared with males, female hockey players sustained proportionately more soft tissue injures and sprains/strains, and showed a trend toward concussions in late adolecence. Males experienced more fractures, shoulder injuries and injuries due to body checking. Further research is required to identify risk factors for injury in female youth hockey players and to target injury prevention.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".