When to Pull the Trigger: Conceptual Considerations for Approximating Head Acceleration Events Using Instrumented Mouthguards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Head acceleration events (HAEs) are acceleration responses of the head following external short-duration collisions. The potential risk of brain injury from a single high-magnitude HAE or repeated occurrences makes them a significant concern in sport. Instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) can approximate HAEs. The distinction between sensor acceleration events, the iMG datum for approximating HAEs and HAEs themselves, which have been defined as the in vivo event, is made to highlight limitations of approximating HAEs using iMGs. This article explores the technical limitations of iMGs that constrain the approximation of HAEs and discusses important conceptual considerations for stakeholders interpreting iMG data. The approximation of HAEs by sensor acceleration events is constrained by false positives and false negatives. False positives occur when a sensor acceleration event is recorded despite no (in vivo) HAE occurring, while false negatives occur when a sensor acceleration event is not recorded after an (in vivo) HAE has occurred. Various mechanisms contribute to false positives and false negatives. Video verification and post-processing algorithms offer effective means for eradicating most false positives, but mitigation for false negatives is less comprehensive. Consequently, current iMG research is likely to underestimate HAE exposures, especially at lower magnitudes. Future research should aim to mitigate false negatives, while current iMG datasets should be interpreted with consideration for false negatives when inferring athlete HAE exposure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".