Development of the NOCSAE Standard to Reduce the Risk of Commotio Cordis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Commotio cordis, sudden cardiac death (SCD) caused by relatively innocent impact to the chest, is one of the leading causes of SCD in sports. Commercial chest protectors have not been demonstrated to mitigate the risk of these SCDs. METHODS: To develop a standard to assess chest protectors, 4 phases occurred. A physiological commotio cordis model was utilized to assess variables that predicted for SCD. Next, a surrogate model was developed based on data from the physiological model, and the attenuation in risk was assessed. In the third phase, this model was calibrated and validated. Finally, National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment adopted the standard and had an open review process with revision of the standard over 3 years. RESULTS: Of all variables, impact force was the most robust at predicting SCD. Chest wall protectors which could reduce the force of impact to under thresholds were predicted to reduce the risk of SCD. The correlation between the experimental model and the mechanical surrogate ranged from 0.783 with a lacrosse ball at 30 mph to 0.898 with a baseball at 50 mph. The standard was licensed to National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment which initially adopted the standard in January 2018, and finalized in July 2021. CONCLUSIONS: An effective mechanical surrogate based on physiological data from a well-established model of commotio cordis predicts the reduction in SCD with chest protectors. A greater reduction in force provides a great degree of protection from commotio cordis. This new National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standard for chest protectors should result in a significant reduction in the risk of commotio cordis on the playing field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".