MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281707017 · doi:10.1097/jsm.0000000000001045

Observed Injury Rates Did Not Follow Theoretically Predicted Injury Risk Patterns in Professional Human Circus Artists

2022· article· en· W4281707017 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusicians’ Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInjury preventionAthletesPhysical therapyRehabilitationMusculoskeletal injuryPoison controlMedical emergencyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Identifying which types of athletes have increased injury risk (ie, predictive risk factors) should help develop cost-effective selective injury prevention strategies. Our objective was to compare a theoretical injury risk classification system developed by coaches and rehabilitation therapists, with observed injury rates in human circus acts across dimensions of physical stressors, acrobatic complexity, qualifications, and residual risks. DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiological study. SETTING: professional circus company. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Human circus artists performing in routine roles between 2007 and 2017. ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS: Characteristics of circus acts categorized according to 4 different dimensions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical attention injury rates (injury requiring a visit to the therapist), time-loss injury rates (TL-1; injury resulting in at least one missed performance), and time-loss 15 injury rates (TL-15; injury resulting in at least 15 missed performances). RESULTS: Among 962 artists with 1 373 572 performances, 89.4% (860/962) incurred at least one medical attention injury, 74.2% (714/962) incurred at least one TL-1 injury, and 50.8% (489/962) incurred at least one TL-15 injury. There were important inconsistencies between theoretical and observed injury risk patterns in each of the 4 dimensions for all injury definitions (medical attention, TL-1, and TL-15). CONCLUSIONS: Although theoretical classifications are the only option when no data are available, observed risk patterns based on injury surveillance programs can help identify artists who have a high (or low) theoretical risk but are nonetheless actually at low (or high) risk of injury, given their current roles. This will help develop more cost-effective selective injury prevention programs.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.344 · 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