MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736202891

Did Implementation of the Zero-Tolerance for Head Contact Rule Change the Risk of Concussion and Injury in Youth Hockey Players in Alberta?

2014· article· en· W2736202891 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Maciej Krolikowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of undergraduate research in Alberta · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionIce hockeyHead injuryCohortPsychologyMedicineAthletesPhysical therapyInjury preventionPoison controlDemographyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergencySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ice hockey is a popular winter sport in Canada. Concussion accounts for the greatest proportion of all injuries in youth ice hockey. Research has informed policy change enforcing the no head contact rule in all leagues in Canada in 2011. Objective: To determine if the risk of game-related concussion and other injury differ for Pee Wee (ages 11-12) and Bantam (ages 13-14) players following a 2011 rule implementation compared to players in similar divisions prior to the rule change. Design: Historical cohort study. Setting : Ice hockey rinks. Participants: Historical cohort included Pee Wee (most elite 70%, 2007/08) (n=891) and Bantam (most elite 30%, 2008/09) (n=378) players before the rule change and Pee Wee (2011/12) (n=588) and Bantam (2011/12) (n=244) players in the same levels of play after the policy change. Assessment of Risk Factors: Exposure of ice hockey teams before and after a “zero tolerance for head contact” rule enforcement policy change. Risk factors include position, and previous injury/concussion. Main Outcome Measurements: Suspected concussions were identified by a team designate (Pee Wee) or team therapist (Bantam) and referred to a sport medicine physician. Hockey injuries included those requiring medical attention and/or time loss. Results: The risk of game concussion increased in both age cohorts in the season following implementation of the zero-tolerance for  head contact rule (Rule 6.5) in 2011 compared to players in similar age groups and divisions prior to implementation (Pee Wee concussion IRR = 1.96 [95% CI; 1.29-2.98] and Bantam concussion IRR = 2.61 [95% CI; 1.28-5.35]). The risk of other injury (excluding concussion) did not change in the Bantam level (Bantam other injury IRR = 0.99 [95% CI; 0.62-1.63]). Conclusions: The “zero tolerance for head contact or head checks” rule did not reduce game-related concussion risk in Pee Wee or Bantam ice hockey players. This study will inform future research examining mechanism of injury leading to concussions in youth ice hockey.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.417
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of undergraduate research in AlbertaSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207