MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2990382677

Lifetime prevalence of concussion among Canadian ice hockey players aged 10 to 25 years old, 2014 to 2017.

2019· article· en· W2990382677 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tian Renton, Scott Howitt, Cameron Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionIce hockeyMedicineAthletesInjury preventionPhysical therapyOccupational safety and healthPoison controlMedical recordPsychiatryMedical emergencyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to identify the self-reported lifetime prevalence of diagnosed concussions among Canadian ice hockey players aged 10 to 25 years old. METHOD: Medical records were identified for n=5223 athletes whom completed comprehensive baseline assessments with a Canada-wide network of private concussion management clinics. Variables extracted included: sex, age, diagnosed history of and number of prior concussions, diagnosed health condition(s), and Post-Concussion Symptom Scale scores. RESULTS: Approximately 22% of all athletes, 21.7% of females and 21.8% of males reported that they had sustained at least one diagnosed concussion. Age was significantly associated with history of concussion as was having an additional health condition. Sex was not significantly associated with a history of concussion. CONCLUSION: Lifetime history of concussion prevalence estimates aligned closely with estimates previously published. Future investigations should seek to establish the prevalence of concussions that occur during ice hockey games and practices alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→