Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their well-designed, case–control investigation of mouthguard use in youth ice hockey players and the risk of concussion, Chisholm and colleagues1 report that those wearing a mouthguard—whether custom-made or off-the-shelf—had lower rates of concussion than control participants. The point estimate suggests a considerably reduced risk, although the CIs are broad. The authors report differences in the estimate of reduced risk for custom-made and off-the-shelf mouthguards, with the latter (perhaps surprisingly) having a greater reduction, although again the CIs are broad. The authors are explicit that their study is not powered for precise estimates of this secondary analysis, so we must all be cautious in interpreting this latter observation. The primary observation—that mouthguards are associated with a lower rate of concussion—is an important contribution to the literature. The finding differs from that of the most recent systematic review of whether mouthguards can protect against concussion in contact sports, which concluded that ‘the effect of mouthguards on concussion risk was minimal’,2 although …
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".