MOUTHGUARD USE IN YOUTH ICE HOCKEY AND THE RISK OF CONCUSSION AND DENTAL INJURIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Concussion is the most common injury in youth ice hockey. Mouthguards can play a role in reducing the risk dental injuries; however there is limited evidence evaluating their association with concussion in youth ice hockey. Objective To assess the association between mouthguard use and risk of concussion and dental trauma in youth ice hockey. Design Nested case-control. Setting Youth ice hockey leagues (elite and non-elite) in Calgary, Canada, where mouthguard use is not mandatory. Participants Baseline and injury data were collected for 11–17 year old players from 2013–2016. Assessment of Risk Factors Mouthguard use at time of injury as reported on Injury Report Forms. Main Outcome Measurements Case groups were defined as concussed players (therapist suspected or study physician diagnosed) and those with dental injuries; controls were players who sustained a non-concussion/non-dental injury during a game or practice. Only the first injury sustained within or between seasons was included. Frequency of mouthguard usage between cases and controls was compared. Information on baseline self-reported mouthguard use and type was also collected. Results At baseline, the majority of players self reported always wearing a mouthguard during games 2,156/2,606 (82.7%) and practices 1,853/2,539 (73.0%). No dental injuries were reported during the study period. Amongst concussion cases 147/185 players (79.5%) reported mouthguard use at time of injury, compared with 134/147 controls (91.2%) (unadjusted OR=0.38 95% CI 0.18–0.76). Future analyses will include multivariable logistic regression adjusting for relevant covariates and considering effect modification. The effect of mouthguard type at time of injury, and concordance between mouthguard use at baseline and time of injury will also be examined. Conclusions The majority of players self reported always wearing a mouthguard at baseline when there was not mandatory enforcement. Based on preliminary univariate analyses, mouthguard use was associated with reduced odds of 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".