Circus-specific extension of the 6th International Consensus Statement on Concussion in Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While sport-related concussion (SRC) is a known risk in circus arts, no published guidelines exist to guide post-concussion return to circus, contributing to inadequate management in this population. The Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) published the 6th international consensus statement in 2023, providing updated guidance and assessment tools for the management of SRC. Sport and dance organisations have adapted these recommendations for their specific settings. The aim of this extension statement was to extend the CISG guideline to the circus arts training and performance context. Development included a review of literature, creation of the initial drafts by the working group, feedback from external reviewers and integration of the feedback into a final draft approved by the working group. This statement includes circus-specific recommendations for: (1) baseline testing; (2) immediate postinjury management including adapted Maddocks questions; (3) a criterion-based return-to-circus progression including guidance by circus discipline; (4) prognostic considerations; (5) risk reduction/prevention. While ongoing research specific to SRC in circus is needed, this guideline supports and advises circus organisations to develop concussion management protocols and policies. It also informs clinicians to assist their understanding of the unique aspects and demands of circus arts to provide tailored clinical care in the rehabilitation of circus artists as they return to training and performance following SRC.
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 | 0.063 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
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".