MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Efficacy Of Soft-shell Padding On Head Impact Kinematics In American Football: Pilot Findings

2023· article· en· W4387062990 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron M. Sinnott, Clara Soligon, Hari Pinapaka, David Mincberg, Jason P. Mihalik

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaddingShell (structure)Interquartile rangeLinear accelerationSoft tissueKinematicsSoft tissue injuryMedicinePhysicsAccelerationMathematicsMaterials scienceSurgeryStatisticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Soft-shell padding can be used to augment standard football helmets and is purported to reduce head impact severity. We aimed to determine if soft-shell padding reduces head impact kinematics a) among individuals that had not previously worn soft-shell padding, and b) between teammates with or without soft-shell padding. METHODS: We studied 15 offensive and defensive linemen and linebackers completing the 2021 fall college season. This included a group of players wearing soft-shell protective padding for the final 5 weeks of the season (SHELL; n = 10; height = 194.0 ± 3.6 cm; mass = 134.3 ± 10.6 kg), and a control group not wearing soft-shell padding (CONTROL; n = 5; height = 188.0 ± 6.5 cm; mass = 119.1 ± 12.1 kg). Helmets were instrumented with Head Impact Telemetry System to quantify peak linear (g) and rotational (rad/s2) accelerations. Among SHELL, we conducted a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare head impact kinematics between weeks 1-7 (without soft-shell padding) and weeks 8-12 (with soft-shell padding). We also compared SHELL and CONTROL groups with Mann-Whitney U-Tests across these outcomes during weeks 8-12. RESULTS: Two head impacts from SHELL and seven impacts from CONTROL were statistical outliers (linear acceleration > 80 g) and removed from dataset. Within SHELL, there were no significant differences (Z = -.096; p = .924) in linear acceleration between weeks 1-7 (n = 2176; median [interquartile range]: 21.8 [14.2] g and weeks 8-12 (n = 755; 22.1 [15.3] g). A similar finding was observed for rotational acceleration (Z = .354, p = .552; weeks 1-7: 1464.2 [922.9] rad/s2; weeks 8-12: 1478.7 [1153.3] rad/s2). There were no differences in linear acceleration (U = 1.926, p = 0.185) during weeks 8-12 between SHELL (n = 755; 20.8 [14.0] g) and CONTROL (n = 392; 22.1 [15.3] g) groups. We observed a similar trend for rotational acceleration (U = 0.073, p = 0.835; SHELL: 1493.2 [1014.5] rad/s2; CONTROL: 1478.7 [1153.3] rad/s2). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of our pilot study, soft-shell padding did not reduce head impact severity. Future studies should consider video-confirmed impacts to examine practice characteristics (individual vs team drills) to further evaluate the football specific contexts in which soft-shell protective padding may best reduce head impact burden for athletes who choose to use them.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.405
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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→