Why Professional Football Players Chose Not to Reveal Their Concussion Symptoms During a Practice or Game
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine why professional football players in Canada decided not to seek medical attention during a game or practice when they believed they had suffered a concussion. DESIGN: Retrospective survey. SETTING: Preseason Canadian Football League training camps. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred fifty-four male professional football players. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reasons athletes did not seek medical attention for a presumed concussion during the previous season, how often this occurred and how important these reasons were in the decision process. RESULTS: One hundred six of the 454 respondents (23.4%) believed they had suffered a concussion during their previous football season and 87 of the 106 (82.1%) did not seek medical attention for a concussion at least once during that season. The response "Did not feel the concussion was serious/severe and felt you could still continue to play with little danger to yourself" was the most commonly listed reason (49/106) for not seeking medical attention for a presumed concussion. Many players answered that they did not seek medical attention because they did not want to be removed from a game (42/106) and/or they did not want to risk missing future games (41/106) by being diagnosed with a concussion. CONCLUSIONS: Some professional football players who believed they had suffered a concussion chose not to seek medical attention at the time of injury. Players seemed educated about the concussion evaluation process and possible treatment guidelines, but this knowledge did not necessarily translate into safe and appropriate behavior at the time of injury.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".