MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2342984340 · doi:10.1177/1754337116633376

An examination of the current National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment system and a new pneumatic ram method for evaluating American football helmet performance to reduce risk of concussion

2016· article· en· W2342984340 on OpenAlexaff
T. Blaine Hoshizaki, Clara Karton, Anna Oeur, Marshall Kendall, Lauren Dawson, Andrew Post

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment
KeywordsConcussionFootballTest (biology)Poison controlAmerican footballEngineeringAeronauticsSafety standardsNational standardInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthMedicineMedical emergencyLawReliability engineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain injuries are prevalent in the sport of American football. Helmets have been used which effectively have reduced the incidence of traumatic brain injury, but have had a limited effect on concussion rates. In an effort to improve the protective capacity of American football helmets, a standard has been proposed by National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment that may better represent helmet-to-helmet impacts common to football concussions. The purpose of this research was to examine the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standard and a new impact method similar to the proposed National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standard to examine the information these methods provide on helmet performance. Five National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment–certified American football helmets were impacted according to the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standard test and a new method based on the proposed standard test. The results demonstrated that the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment test produced larger linear accelerations than the new method, which were a reflection of the stiffer compliance of the standard meant to replicate traumatic brain injury mechanisms of injury. When the helmets were impacted using a new helmet-to-helmet method, the results reflected significant risk of concussive injury but showed differences in rotational acceleration responses between different helmet models. This suggests that the new system is sensitive enough to detect the effect of different design changes on rotational acceleration, a metric more closely associated with risk of concussion. As only one helmet produced magnitudes of response lower than the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment pass/fail using the new system, and all helmets passed the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standard, these results suggest that further development of helmet technologies must be undertaken to reduce this risk in the future. Finally, these results show that it would be prudent to use both standards together to address risk of injury from traumatic brain injury and concussion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→