MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217182022 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-ioc.394

430 A novel virtual helmet fit assessment for ice hockey and ringette players amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

2021· article· en· W3217182022 on OpenAlex
Ash T Kolstad, Linden C. Penner, Alexandra J. Sobry, Amanda M. Black, Brent Hagel, Carolyn A. Emery

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeySports medicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Proper helmet fit is an important consideration for preventing head injuries, including concussions, in helmeted sports like youth ice hockey and ringette. Helmet fit assessments are typically completed in-person; however, this was not possible given COVID-19 restrictions. Thus, alternative considerations for virtual assessments were required. <h3>Objective</h3> To examine the feasibility and inter-rater reliability of virtual ice hockey and ringette helmet fit assessments. <h3>Design</h3> Cross-sectional. <h3>Setting</h3> Calgary, Canada. <h3>Participants</h3> Elite/upper division youth (ages 13–18) ice hockey (n=31 males) and ringette (n=30 females) players. <h3>Assessment of Risk Factors</h3> Standardized ice hockey/ringette helmet fit criteria were developed and reliable for in-person assessments. Criteria were adapted for virtual delivery to participants over ZOOM video platform individually by two trained assessors per sport. <h3>Main Outcome Measurements</h3> Twelve helmet fit criteria scored as yes/proper fit or no/poor fit were used to assess helmet shell fit (e.g., helmet fits snug, doesn’t cover eyes), positioning (e.g., helmet is 1–2 finger widths above eyebrows, covers base of skull), facemask fit (e.g., chin piece fits, facemask does not move left/right), and others. Percent agreement (PA) between raters was used to describe inter-rater reliability, and each rater documented barriers for completing the assessments virtually. <h3>Results</h3> Acceptable PA (&gt;80%) was demonstrated for 8/12 criterion for ice hockey and 9/12 for ringette. Below acceptable agreement was found for all four criterion assessing the helmet facemask fit (PA range: 48%-74%) in ice hockey players and criteria for the chin straps fit (PA=66%), helmet positioning (PA=73%), and facemask fit (PA=63%) in ringette players. Common barriers were related to technology (e.g., audio/video quality) and environment (e.g., noisy, lighting). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Virtual helmet fit assessments are feasible and reliable for most criteria, with more training required for criteria below acceptable agreement. Virtual assessments provides another option for assessing helmet fit for concussion prevention in helmeted sports.

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.

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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.274 · 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