Traumatic brain injuries in mixed martial arts: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Mixed martial arts is an emerging combat sport that is gaining popularity worldwide. We systematically reviewed the literature regarding the prevalence, severity and risk factors of head injuries sustained in mixed martial arts activities. Methods We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for studies of any design that reported associations of acute or chronic head injuries in persons participating in mixed martial arts activities. Results The initial database search yielded a total 472 citations, including 264 unique citations after duplications were removed. A total of 18 articles, primarily of observational data, showed ‘technical knockouts’ and ‘knockouts’ are prevalent in this sport (range: 28.3–46.2% of all matches) with other studies showing the lifetime average of 6.2 technical knockouts or knockouts in a career. Studies used inconsistent reporting methods for concussion, and no information regarding long-term follow-up was available. Conclusion Mixed martial arts fighting may be associated with repetitive head injuries and potential long-term neurological consequences; however, data on this topic are poor. Larger studies and stringent medical oversight are needed to improve the management and understanding of mixed martial arts head injuries, with implementation of harm reduction strategies and/or rule modifications to prevent long-term neurological sequelae. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO – CRD42014010019.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it