Development of a risk prediction model among professional hockey players with visible signs of concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Little research examines how to best identify concussed athletes. The purpose of the present study was to develop a preliminary risk decision model that uses visible signs (VS) and mechanisms of injury (MOI) to predict the likelihood of subsequent concussion diagnosis. Methods Coders viewed and documented VS and associated MOI for all NHL games over the course of the 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 regular seasons. After coding was completed, player concussions were identified from the NHL injury surveillance system and it was determined whether players exhibiting VS were subsequently diagnosed with concussions by club medical staff as a result of the coded event. Results Among athletes exhibiting VS, suspected loss of consciousness, motor incoordination or balance problems, being in a fight, having an initial hit from another player’s shoulder and having a secondary hit on the ice were all associated withincreasedrisk of subsequent concussion diagnosis. In contrast, having an initial hit with a stick was associated withdecreasedrisk of subsequent concussion diagnosis. A risk prediction model using a combination of the above VS and MOI was superior to approaches that relied on individual VS and associated MOI (sensitivity=81%, specificity=72%, positive predictive value=26%). Conclusions Combined use of VS and MOI significantly improves a clinician’s ability to identify players who need to be evaluated for possible concussion. A preliminary concussion prediction log has been developed from these data. Pending prospective validation, the use of these methods may improve early concussion detection and evaluation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".