MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152532684 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-0393.20

Sex-Based Differences in Symptoms With Mouthguard Use After Pediatric Sport-Related Concussion

2021· article· en· W3152532684 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacqueline van Ierssel, Andrée‐Anne Ledoux, Ken Tang, Roger Zemek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Trauma and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnicodeConcussionContext (archaeology)Interquartile rangePoison controlMedicineInjury preventionPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologySurgeryMedical emergencyComputer scienceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Current evidence regarding the protective effect of mouthguard use on symptom severity in children and adolescents who sustain sport-related concussions is insufficient to make clinical recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the association between mouthguard use and symptoms stratified by sex in the first 4 weeks after pediatric sport-related concussion. We hypothesized that mouthguard use would be associated with less severe symptoms. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Nine Canadian pediatric emergency departments (EDs). PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 5 to 18 years who were assessed within 48 hours of concussions sustained during a collision or contact sport. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Injury characteristics were collected using the Acute Concussion Evaluation. The primary outcome measure was symptom score (range = 0-6), measured using age-appropriate versions (5-7, 8-12, or 13-18 years) of the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory. The independent variable was time postconcussion (initial assessment and 1, 2, and 4 weeks). RESULTS: Of 1019 children (73% male; median [interquartile range] age = 13.43 years [11.01-15.27 years]), 42% wore a mouthguard at the time of injury. No significant group-by-sex-by-time interaction was present for symptoms (\(\def\upalpha{\unicode[Times]{x3B1}}\)\(\def\upbeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B2}}\)\(\def\upgamma{\unicode[Times]{x3B3}}\)\(\def\updelta{\unicode[Times]{x3B4}}\)\(\def\upvarepsilon{\unicode[Times]{x3B5}}\)\(\def\upzeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B6}}\)\(\def\upeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B7}}\)\(\def\uptheta{\unicode[Times]{x3B8}}\)\(\def\upiota{\unicode[Times]{x3B9}}\)\(\def\upkappa{\unicode[Times]{x3BA}}\)\(\def\uplambda{\unicode[Times]{x3BB}}\)\(\def\upmu{\unicode[Times]{x3BC}}\)\(\def\upnu{\unicode[Times]{x3BD}}\)\(\def\upxi{\unicode[Times]{x3BE}}\)\(\def\upomicron{\unicode[Times]{x3BF}}\)\(\def\uppi{\unicode[Times]{x3C0}}\)\(\def\uprho{\unicode[Times]{x3C1}}\)\(\def\upsigma{\unicode[Times]{x3C3}}\)\(\def\uptau{\unicode[Times]{x3C4}}\)\(\def\upupsilon{\unicode[Times]{x3C5}}\)\(\def\upphi{\unicode[Times]{x3C6}}\)\(\def\upchi{\unicode[Times]{x3C7}}\)\(\def\uppsy{\unicode[Times]{x3C8}}\)\(\def\upomega{\unicode[Times]{x3C9}}\)\(\def\bialpha{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\)\(\def\bibeta{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\)\(\def\bigamma{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\)\(\def\bidelta{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\)\(\def\bivarepsilon{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\)\(\def\bizeta{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\)\(\def\bieta{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\)\(\def\bitheta{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\)\(\def\biiota{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\)\(\def\bikappa{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\)\(\def\bilambda{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\)\(\def\bimu{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\)\(\def\binu{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\)\(\def\bixi{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\)\(\def\biomicron{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\)\(\def\bipi{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\)\(\def\birho{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\)\(\def\bisigma{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\)\(\def\bitau{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\)\(\def\biupsilon{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\)\(\def\biphi{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\)\(\def\bichi{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\)\(\def\bipsy{\boldsymbol{\psy}}\)\(\def\biomega{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\)\(\def\bupalpha{\bf{\alpha}}\)\(\def\bupbeta{\bf{\beta}}\)\(\def\bupgamma{\bf{\gamma}}\)\(\def\bupdelta{\bf{\delta}}\)\(\def\bupvarepsilon{\bf{\varepsilon}}\)\(\def\bupzeta{\bf{\zeta}}\)\(\def\bupeta{\bf{\eta}}\)\(\def\buptheta{\bf{\theta}}\)\(\def\bupiota{\bf{\iota}}\)\(\def\bupkappa{\bf{\kappa}}\)\(\def\buplambda{\bf{\lambda}}\)\(\def\bupmu{\bf{\mu}}\)\(\def\bupnu{\bf{\nu}}\)\(\def\bupxi{\bf{\xi}}\)\(\def\bupomicron{\bf{\micron}}\)\(\def\buppi{\bf{\pi}}\)\(\def\buprho{\bf{\rho}}\)\(\def\bupsigma{\bf{\sigma}}\)\(\def\buptau{\bf{\tau}}\)\(\def\bupupsilon{\bf{\upsilon}}\)\(\def\bupphi{\bf{\phi}}\)\(\def\bupchi{\bf{\chi}}\)\(\def\buppsy{\bf{\psy}}\)\(\def\bupomega{\bf{\omega}}\)\(\def\bGamma{\bf{\Gamma}}\)\(\def\bDelta{\bf{\Delta}}\)\(\def\bTheta{\bf{\Theta}}\)\(\def\bLambda{\bf{\Lambda}}\)\(\def\bXi{\bf{\Xi}}\)\(\def\bPi{\bf{\Pi}}\)\(\def\bSigma{\bf{\Sigma}}\)\(\def\bPhi{\bf{\Phi}}\)\(\def\bPsi{\bf{\Psi}}\)\(\def\bOmega{\bf{\Omega}}\)\({\rm{\chi }}_3^2\) = 0.27; P = .965). Male mouthguard users reported similar symptom scores in the ED (difference in Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory Δ scores [diff] = -0.07; 95% CI = -0.23, 0.09) and at weeks 1 (diff = -0.02; 95% CI = -0.18, 0.14), 2 (diff = -0.03; 95% CI = -0.19, 0.13), and 4 (diff = -0.13; 95% CI = -0.29, 0.04) compared with males who did not wear a mouthguard. Female mouthguard users described minimally higher symptom scores at week 1 compared with non-mouthguard users (diff = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.56). In the ED, symptom scores were not different for females who wore a mouthguard and those who did not (diff = 0.22; 95% CI = -0.04, 0.48) or at weeks 2 (diff = 0.22; 95% CI = -0.06, 0.51) or 4 (diff = 0.08; 95% CI = -0.20, 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Wearing a mouthguard at the time of injury was not associated with reduced acute or subacute symptoms after sport-related concussion in either males or females who were treated in the ED compared with those who did not wear a mouthguard. Athletes are still encouraged to wear mouthguards during sports because overwhelming evidence supports their use in preventing dental injuries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Athletic TrainingSame topicDental Trauma and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207