Physical activity and concussion risk in youth ice hockey players: pooled prospective injury surveillance cohorts from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between meeting physical activity (PA) volume recommendations and concussion rates in male ice hockey players aged 11-17 years. DESIGN: Pooled prospective injury surveillance cohort data from the 2011-2012, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 youth ice hockey seasons. PARTICIPANTS: Male Alberta-based Pee Wee (aged 11-12 years), Bantam (aged 13-14 years) and Midget (aged 15-17 years) ice hockey players participating in any of the three cohorts were eligible (n=1726). A total of 1208 players were included after the exclusion criteria were applied (ie, players with new/unhealed injuries within 6 weeks of study entry, missing 6-week PA history questionnaires, missing game and/or practice participation exposure hours, players who sustained concussions when no participation exposure hours were collected). OUTCOME MEASURES: Dependent variable: medically diagnosed concussion. Independent variable: whether or not players' self-reported history of PA (ie, hours of physical education and extracurricular sport participation) met the Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology and Public Health Agency of Canada recommendation of one hour daily during the 6 weeks prior to study entry (ie, 42 hours or more). RESULTS: The PA volume recommendations were met by 65.05% of players who subsequently sustained concussions, and 75.34% of players who did not sustain concussions. The concussion incidence rate ratios (IRR) reflect higher concussion rates in players who did not meet the PA volume recommendations vs. players who met the PA volume recommendations among Pee Wee players (IRR 2.94 95% CI 1.30 to 6.64), Bantam players (IRR 2.18, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.93) and non-elite players aged 11-14 years (IRR 2.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.51). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The concussion rate of players who did not meet the Canadian PA volume recommendations was more than twice the concussion rate of players who met recommendations among male Pee Wee players, Bantam players and non-elite level players. Further exploration of the impact of public health PA recommendations in a sport injury prevention context is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".