MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224282041 · doi:10.2196/35862

COVID-19 Return to Sport: NFL Injury Prevalence Analysis

2022· article· en· W4224282041 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIRx Med · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Injury preventionFootballLeagueOccupational safety and healthPandemicMedicinePoison controlSuicide preventionTeam sportPhysical therapyMedical emergencyDemographyGeographyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Sport injuries have been common among athletes across the globe for decades and have the potential to disrupt athletic careers, performance, and psyche. Many health professionals and organizations have undertaken injury mitigation strategies to prevent sport injuries through protective equipment, training protocols, and a host of other evidence-based practices. Many of these specialized training methods were disrupted due to protocols to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. This research examines the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to the prevalence of athletic injuries in the National Football League (NFL). Objective During the COVID-19 pandemic, NFL teams and athletes across all levels of sport were reported to have reduced training in preparation for their seasons due to protocols to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. This study compares the prevalence of injury during the 2018, 2019, and 2020 NFL seasons, with the aim to determine the potential causes of the differences in injury prevalence. Methods Official injury reports from each team were counted during the 17-week regular season of each year (2018, 2019, and 2020). The data were analyzed using an unpaired t test to compare the injury prevalence between each of the three seasons. Results The 2018 season produced a total of 1561 injuries and a mean of 48.8 injuries per team. The 2019 season produced a total of 1897 injuries and a mean of 59.3 injuries per team, while the 2020 season produced a total of 2484 injuries and a mean of 77.6 injuries per team. An unpaired t test was performed using the data to compare the mean number of injuries per team during each of the seasons. Comparison of the 2020 season against the 2019 season showed a statistically significant difference (P<.001); comparison of the 2020 season to the 2018 season found a statistically significant difference (P<.001); and comparison between the 2019 and the 2018 seasons found a statistically significant difference (P=.03). Conclusions Although the 2019 and 2018 seasons showed a statistically significant difference (P=.03), this difference is not as large when we compare the 2020 seasons versus the 2019 (P<.001) and 2018 (P<.001) seasons. The astronomical increase in injury prevalence during the 2020 season over the previous years raises the possibility that there was a reduced physiological adaptation to stress, due to the limited amount of training as a result of the closure of practice facilities in order to slow the spread of COVID-19.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.329 · 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