MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3214875744 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-ioc.42

044 Evaluation of body checking policy for injury prevention in non-elite adolescent ice hockey players

2021· article· en· W3214875744 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolyn A. Emery, Paul Eliason, Warriyar KV Vineetha, Luz Palacios‐Derflingher, Amanda M. Black, Maciej Krolikowski, Nicole Spencer, Kathryn Schneider, Shelina Babul, Martin Mrázik, Constance Lebrun, Claude Goulet, Alison Macpherson, Brent Hagel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversité LavalUniversity of AlbertaSpinal Cord Injury AlbertaAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyConcussionEliteLeaguePoison controlInjury preventionPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergencyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Body checking is associated with an increased risk of injury and concussion in Pee Wee (ages 11–12) and non-elite (lower 70% by division of play) Bantam (ages 13–14) ice hockey players. This research informed local and provincial policy changes disallowing body checking in non-elite Midget (ages 15–17). Objective To evaluate the rate ratios of game-related injury and concussion in non-elite Midget players following policy change disallowing body checking in games compared with similar leagues still allowing body checking. Design Prospective cohort. Setting Community ice hockey rinks. Participants Non-elite Midget ice hockey players from 44 teams (453 player-records) where policy disallowed body checking in the lower 70% of divisions of play, and 52 teams (674 player-records) from similar divisions where policy allowed body checking; 120 players participated in more than one season. Assessment of Risk Factors Exposure to policy that permits body checking (Edmonton 2015–17 and Calgary 2015–18) vs. policy disallowing body checking (Vancouver 2015–16, Edmonton 2016–17, and Calgary 2016–18). Main Outcome Measurements All game-related ice hockey-related injuries were identified by a team safety designate. Suspected concussions were referred to a study sport medicine physician. Results In divisions allowing body checking, there were 213 injuries [incidence rate (IR)= 12.96/1000 player-hours; 95% CI: 9.21–16.70] including 69 concussions (IR= 4.20/1000 player-hours; 95% CI: 2.63–5.76). In divisions disallowing body checking, there were 40 injuries (IR=5.13/1000 player-hours; 95% CI: 1.71–8.56) including 18 concussions (IR= 2.31/1000 player-hours; 95% CI: 0.62–4.00). Using multilevel Poisson regression adjusted for cluster and several important covariates (year of play, player weight, previous injury/concussion history, position), policy disallowing body checking was associated with a lower rate of all injury [incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.38; 95% CI: 0.24–0.60), and concussion (RR=0.49; 95% CI: 0.26–0.89). Conclusions Policy disallowing body checking reduced the rate of game-related injuries in Midget non-elite levels of ice hockey. This research should inform body checking policy change nationally.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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