MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379768848 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxad007

Sport-related concussion and bodychecking in children and youth: Evaluation, management, and policy implications

2023· review· en· W4379768848 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian Goulet, Suzanne Beno

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionRecreationInjury preventionMedicineSuicide preventionPhysical therapyPoison controlPsychologyMedical emergencyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concussions are a common injury both within and outside sport and recreational settings, and they remain a serious concern for children and youth. Any young person suspected of sustaining a concussion should be medically evaluated as soon as possible, and when the injury occurs during sport, the individual must be removed from play immediately to avoid secondary injury. A brief initial period of physical and cognitive rest is followed by supervised, stepwise return-to-learn and return-to-play protocols. All individuals involved in child and youth sports and recreation must be able to recognize risk for, and signs and symptoms of, concussion. They must also ensure that any participant suspected of sustaining a concussion is properly evaluated and managed by qualified medical personnel. Evolving data and literature have strengthened both our pathophysiological understanding of concussion and guidance for clinical management, especially related to acute care, persistent symptoms, and prevention. This statement also re-examines the relationship between bodychecking in hockey and injury rates, and advocates for a change in policy in youth hockey.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207