Professional assessment of potential concussions in elite football tournaments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Potential concussive events (PCEs) are a major health concern in football. Though there are protocols set in place for assessments of PCEs, there has been no evidence of adherence in major football tournaments. METHODS: Our research goal is to determine if PCEs in elite football are professionally assessed according to the International Conference on Concussion in Sport (ICCS) consensus statement recommendations. Identification and analysis of PCEs in the 2018 World Cup (WC) were accomplished through standardised observation of video footage by trained observers. Results were contrasted with data from the 2014 WC and 2016 Euro Cup. Our primary outcomes include frequency and professional assessment of PCEs, signs of concussions and time stopped for assessments. FINDINGS: In the 64 games of the 2018 WC, 87 PCEs (1.36 per game) were identified. Thirty-one (35.6%) PCEs were professionally assessed, resulting in the removal of three (3.5%) players from the match. Six (6.9%) PCEs showed one sign of concussion, 60 (69.0%) showed two signs, 20 (23.0%) showed three signs and 1 (1.2%) showed four or more signs. The mean time stopped for assessment was 63.3 s. No significant change in the percentage of professional assessments (mean=33.4%, 95% CI 20.7% to 46.1%) were identified across tournaments (p=0.42). INTERPRETATION: These findings demonstrate a need for adherence to concussion protocols in order to improve the brain-health of athletes. Proper enforcement of the ICCS protocols during these tournaments and promoting player health and safety can influence the officiating, coaching and playing of football worldwide by promoting player safety.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".