MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392350430 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2024-ioc.49

718 FO52 – Injury and concussion rates in adolescent rugby: time to tackle the injury burden in the female game

2024· article· en· W4392350430 on OpenAlexaff
Isla Shill, Stephen West, Stacy Sick, Kathryn Schneider, J. Preston Wiley, Brent Hagel, Amanda M. Black, Carolyn A. Emery

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalBrock UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionPoisson regressionInjury preventionRate ratioMedicinePhysical therapyPoison controlIncidence (geometry)DemographyTeam sportOccupational safety and healthAthletesConfidence intervalPopulationEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Youth rugby injury rates are high compared with other sports. Limited data exist on male-female differences in high school rugby rates. Objective To examine differences in male-female injury rates in high school rugby while considering previous playing experience. Design Prospective cohort. Setting High school (age 15–18 years) rugby union. Participants Male and female high school rugby players (Female: N=14 teams, n=421 players; Males: N=18 teams, n=481) participating in the 2018 and 2019 seasons. Assessment of Risk Factors Participants completed baseline testing each season. Testing included demographic questionnaires (e.g., age, height, weight, injury history, position) and administration of the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool-5. Previous rugby playing experience (years) was self-reported at baseline. Main Outcome Measurement Injuries were recorded if they required medical attention, resulted in the inability to complete a session or to participate in future sessions. Injury incidence rates (IR=#injuries/1000match/training-hours) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson regression, offset by player exposure hours and clustered by team. Results The female match-IR (93.7, 95% CI; 78.6–111.7) was 62% higher than males (57.9, 95% CI: 45.4–73.8) (IRR=1.62; 95% CI: 1.20–2.18) and the female training-IR (5.3; 95% CI: 4.0–6.9) was 2-fold that of males (2.5; 95% CI: 1.7–3.5) (IRR=2.15; 95% CI: 1.40–3.32). The female match concussion-IR (37.5; 95% CI: 26.8–52.3) was 70% higher than the male concussion-IR (22.0; 95% CI: 15.9–30.4) (IRR=1.70; 95% CI: 1.08–2.69). The female tackle-related-IR was 75% higher (65.9; 95% CI: 51.8–83.9) than for males (37.6; 95% CI: 27.8–50.7) (IRR=1.75; 95% CI: 1.20–2.56). Female tackler-IR (37.5; 95% CI: 27.1–51.8) was twice that of males (17.3; 95% CI: 9.8–30.5) (IRR=2.17; 95% CI: 1.14–4.14). Previous playing experience was not associated with injury or concussion. Conclusions Injury and concussion rates were significantly higher in females. A focus on female tackle characteristics could inform female injury prevention strategies (e.g., tackle training).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSports injuries and prevention→French-language works237,207→