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 OpenAlexaffabout
Ash T Kolstad, Linden C. Penner, Alexandra J. Sobry, Amanda M. Black, Brent Hagel, Carolyn A. Emery

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.147
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

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 venuePoster presentationsSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207