MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3124084363

The 2015 U.S. Soccer Federation header ban and its effect on emergency room concussion rates in soccer players aged 10-13.

2020· article· en· W3124084363 on OpenAlexaff
Rahim Lalji, Hayden Snider, Noah Chow, Scott Howitt

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionMedicineEmergency departmentHumanitiesPopulationPoison controlInjury preventionMedical emergencyPsychiatryArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the U.S. Soccer Federation banned heading for players aged 10-13. PURPOSE/QUESTION: To assess the change in proportion of children aged 10-13 playing soccer in the US presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) with a concussion in relation to any other injury before and after the ban. METHODS: Analysis was restricted to soccer athletes between 10-13 years that reported to a National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) participating hospital ED following injury in 2013-2014 and 2016-2017. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between year of injury and concussion diagnosis in relation to other injury diagnosis after adjusting for age, sex, and ethnicity. RESULTS: Concussion in relation to other injuries showed a significant increase in 2016-2017 when compared to 2013-2014 after adjustment (OR= 1.286, 95%CI = 1.090-1.517). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that banning heading may not reduce concussion within this population. However, significant confounders, including increased reporting, were not controlled for.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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