MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386914391 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-0136.23

Preliminary Examination of Guardian Cap Head Impact Kinematics Using Instrumented Mouthguards

2023· article· en· W4386914391 on OpenAlexaff
Kristen G. Quigley, Dustin Hopfe, Madison Fenner, Philip Pavilionis, Vincentia Owusu-Amankonah, Arthur Islas, Nicholas G. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsFootballContext (archaeology)Physical therapyPsychologyMathematicsMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Guardian Caps (GCs) are currently the most popular external helmet add-on designed to reduce the magnitude of head impacts experienced by American football players. Guardian Caps have been endorsed by influential professional organizations; however, few studies evaluating their efficiency are publicly available. OBJECTIVE: To present preliminary on-field head kinematics data for National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I American football players using instrumented mouthguards through closely matched preseason workouts with and without GCs. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: The 2022 American football preseason. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five male NCAA Division I student-athletes participating in American football completed some portion of the 6 workouts included in this study. Of the 25 participants, 7 completed all 6 workouts using their instrumented mouthguards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak angular acceleration (PAA), and total impacts were collected via instrumented mouthguards during 3 preseason workouts using traditional helmets (TRAD condition) and 3 using a TRAD and GCs (GC condition). The TRAD and GC values for PLA, PAA, and total impacts were evaluated using analyses of variance. RESULTS: No difference was present between the collapsed mean values for the entire sample between the TRAD and GC conditions for PLA (TRAD = 16.3g ± 2.0g, GC = 17.2g ± 3.3g, P = .20), PAA (TRAD = 992.1 ± 209.2 rad/s2, GC = 1029.4 ± 261.1 rad/s2, P = .51), or the total number of impacts (TRAD = 9.3 ± 4.7, GC = 9.7 ± 5.7, P = .72). Similarly, no difference was observed between the TRAD and GC conditions for PLA (TRAD = 16.1g ± 1.2g, GC = 17.2g ± 2.79g, P = .32), PAA (TRAD = 951.2 ± 95.4 rad/s2, GC = 1038.0 ± 166.8 rad/s2, P = .29), or total impacts (TRAD = 9.6 ± 4.2, GC = 9.7 ± 5.04, P = .32) between sessions for the 7 players who completed all 6 workouts. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggested no difference in head kinematics data (PLA, PAA, and total impacts) when GCs were worn. Therefore, GCs may not be effective in reducing the magnitude of head impacts experienced by NCAA Division I American football players.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Athletic TrainingSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207