Macpherson A, Rothman L, Howard A. Body-Checking Rules and Childhood Injuries in Ice Hockey. PEDIATRICS 2006;117:e143–e147.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several errors appeared in the article by Macpherson et al, titled “Body-Checking Rules and Childhood Injuries in Ice Hockey” that was published in the February 2006 issue of Pediatrics Electronic Pages (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1163). Due to a coding error, the youngest and oldest age groups were inverted affecting the odds ratios, confidence intervals, and tables throughout the text. The following changes should be noted:Page e143, Abstract, Results section should read as follows:“Results: Of the 4736 hockey injuries, 3006 (63%) were in Ontario and 1730 (37%) were in Quebec. Most of the injuries occurred in areas where checking was allowed (3618 [76.4%]). At ages 10 to 13, players had significantly greater odds of suffering a checking injury where checking was allowed (odds ratio [OR]: 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21–3.18). Players in this age group were also more likely to suffer a concussion (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.93–2.52) or a fracture (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00–1.47) where checking was allowed. Among older players, when checking was allowed in both provinces, there were higher odds (OR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.94–1.33) of receiving a checking injury in the province that had introduced checking at a younger age, suggesting there is no protective effect from learning to check earlier.”Page e145, column 1, Results section, line 3 should read as follows:“Where checking was allowed, there were 3618 injuries.”Page e145, column 2, Results section, lines 2–5 should read as follows:“For example, for 10- and 11-year olds, 41% of the injuries were checking related where checking was allowed compared with 19% where checking was not allowed.”Page e145, column 2, Results section, lines 8–15 should read as follows:“The resulting OR for sustaining a checking injury (compared with a nonchecking injury) in areas in which checking was allowed was 2.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21–3.18). Slightly higher proportions of concussions (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.92–2.53) and significantly more fractures (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00–1.47) were also observed in jurisdictions in which checking was allowed.”Page e145, column 2, Results section, lines 20–25 should read as follows:“Older players in Ontario were more likely to have received a checking injury (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.94–1.32). There was no significant difference in the proportion of concussions in the age group (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 0.79–2.35), nor in proportion of fractures (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.95–1.42).”Page e145, Table 1 should read as follows:Page e146, Table 2 should read as follows:The authors ensure that the changes do not affect the conclusions or implications for injury prevention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".