What Is Injury in Ice Hockey: An Integrative Literature Review on Injury Rates, Injury Definition, and Athlete Exposure in Men’s Elite Ice Hockey
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
Injuries in men's elite ice hockey have been studied over the past 40 years, however, there is a lack of consensus on definitions of both injury and athlete exposure. These inconsistencies compromise the reliability and comparability of the research. While many individual studies report injury rates in ice hockey, we are not aware of any literature reviews that have evaluated the definitions of injury and athlete exposure in men's elite ice hockey. The purpose of this integrative review was to investigate the literature on hockey musculoskeletal injury to determine injury rates and synthesize information about the definitions of injury and athlete exposure. Injury rates varied from 13.8/1000 game athlete exposures to 121/1000 athlete exposures as measured by player-game hours. The majority of variability between studies is explained by differences in the definitions of both injury and athlete exposure. We were unable to find a consensus injury definition in elite ice hockey. In addition, we were unable to observe a consistent athlete exposure metric. We recommend that a consistent injury definition be adopted to evaluate injury risk in elite ice hockey. We recommend that injuries should be defined by a strict list that includes facial lacerations, dental injuries, and fractures. We also recommend that athlete exposure should be quantified using player-game hours.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it