MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321374879 · doi:10.3390/app13042639

Heads Up! A Biomechanical Pilot Investigation of Soccer Heading Using Instrumented Mouthguards (iMGs)

2023· article· en· W4321374879 on OpenAlexaff
Darek Sokol-Randell, Oscar W. Stelzer-Hiller, David Allan, Gregory Tierney

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersUniversity of Leeds
KeywordsHeaderKinematicsBall (mathematics)Computer scienceSimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soccer players purposefully head the ball, raising concerns about reduced tolerance to concussion and potential long-term brain health. By combining qualitative video analysis with custom-fit instrumented mouthguards (iMGs), we aimed to categorize header kinematics (peak linear acceleration (PLA) and peak angular acceleration (PAA)) by header type and ball delivery method. iMGs were fitted to 10 male collegiate players for twelve matches. A total of 133 headers were verified and contextualized via video review. The most common header type (38.7%), as well as the preceding ball delivery method (47.4%), was found to be a pass. Approximately one-quarter of header impacts (27.0%) occurred below 10 g. For header type, there were no significant differences in kinematics, with shot attempts having the highest median PLA and PAA. For ball delivery methods, goal kicks had significantly greater PAA than long balls and pass attempts. The current study highlights the utility of qualitative video analysis in combination with real-time head kinematic data from iMGs to understand the mechanism and severity of header impacts. The pilot findings indicate that high-speed ball delivery methods result in higher head kinematics and should be a focus of future mitigation strategies.

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 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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.104 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207