450 Injury rates, types and mechanisms in sledge hockey: implications for grassroots through elite participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Injuries in parasport are not well explored and may lead to detrimental effects in players with pre-existing disabilities. Previous parasport injury studies have focused on elite sledge hockey during winter Paralympics. Reported injury rates in sledge hockey are higher than other winter parasports. Objective To examine concussion and injury rates, locations, types, mechanisms, and risk factors in sledge hockey. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Sledge hockey players across all levels of play. Participants Sledge hockey players (ages≥14 years) recruited worldwide following the 2019–2020 season through email, social media and word of mouth communication. Ninety-two players initiated the survey and 77 (83.7%) answered questions related to sledge hockey injuries. Assessment of Risk Factors Risk factors considered participant demographics (e.g., age, sex, disability, level of play). Main Outcome Measurements One-year injury rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated based on univariate Poisson regression analyses. Injury proportions by type, location, and mechanism were described. Results There were 47 injuries reported including 16 concussions in 9/77 (11.7%) players and 31 non-concussion injuries in 20/77 (26.0%) players. The overall IR was 13.2 injuries/1000 athlete-exposures (95%CI;9.6–17.6). The game IR (28.4 injuries/1000 game-exposures, 95%CI;18.6–41.7) was significantly higher than for practices (4.4 injuries/1000 practice-exposures, 95%CI;2.2–7.9) (IRR=6.5, 95%CI;3.1–14.5). Significant injury: (1) locations were the head (34.0%), wrist/hand (14.8%) and shoulder (10.6%); (2) types were concussion (36.2%) and bone fracture (8.5%); and (3) mechanism was body checking (42.1% of injuries caused by contact with another player). Age, sex, disability type, and level of play were not found to be injury risk factors. Conclusions Concussions and upper extremity injuries were the most common sledge hockey injuries reported, with body checking being the most common mechanism. This research will inform the development of sledge hockey injury prevention strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".