EFFECT OF PREVIOUS CONCUSSION ON SPORT-SPECIFIC SKILLS IN YOUTH ICE HOCKEY PLAYERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Hockey Canada developed the Hockey Canada Skills Test (HCST), which measures skill acquisition and development. Objective To investigate the effect of previous concussion on sport-specific skill performance in youth ice hockey players. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Ice hockey arenas in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Participants 596 participants [525 males and 71 females, ages 11–17, representing elite (upper 30% by division of play) and non-elite (lower 70%) levels] recruited from minor ice hockey teams over three seasons of play (2012–2015). Assessment of Risk Factors Players completed a baseline questionnaire including the number, date of occurrence, and length of recovery for any previous concussions. Main Outcome Measurements On-ice skill performance was based on the HCST battery (forward agility weave, forward/backward speed skate, forward-to-backward transition agility, 6-repeat endurance skate). Multiple linear regression (adjusted for relative age, level of play, position, elite/non-elite, and musculoskeletal injury in the previous year), accounting for clustering by team, was conducted to explore the effect of history of concussion, number of previous concussions, time since most recent concussion, and severity of most recent concussion on HCST performance. Results A history of concussion and time since most recent concussion were not associated with any HCST component. Players reporting two or more concussions were 7.32 seconds faster (95% CI:3.59–11.05) than those with no history performing forward agility weave with puck. For every additional day to return to play post-concussion, player times were faster by: 0.11 seconds (95% CI:0.05–0.16) on forward agility weave with puck and 0.08 seconds (95% CI:0.04–0.13) without puck, 0.01 seconds (95% CI:0.01–0.02) on transition agility without puck, and 0.06 seconds (95% CI:0.03–0.1) on backward speed with puck and 0.05 seconds (95% CI:0.03–0.07) without puck. Conclusions Players with and without a history of concussion have similar HCST scores. Greater time loss following concussion was associated with better performance. The mechanism for this finding requires further exploration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".