ArticleScientific reports2025
Head impact biomechanics across men's and women's contact sports: a comparative and clustering analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An alternative linear impactor for impact research.HardwareX · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sports head impacts have been associated with both acute and long-term brain trauma. While wearable sensors provide valuable biomechanics insight, most studies focus on single sports, and the variability in sensor methodologies limits cross-sport comparisons. Our objectives were to conduct a multisport comparison and clustering of head impact biomechanics features implicated in brain injury risk. We uniformly processed a multisport dataset gathered using instrumented mouthguards containing direct head impacts in men's football, men's hockey, women's rugby, and women's soccer. We statistically compared directional and resultant peak kinematics, impulse durations, and impact directionality metrics. Then, we applied unsupervised k-means and t-distributed stochastic neighbour embedding (t-SNE) models to examine clustering in impact magnitude and frequency features. Statistically significant cross-sport differences were found in all biomechanical features. Men's football exhibited the highest resultant median peak kinematics, while women's soccer showed lowest median resultant kinematics. However, directional comparisons revealed unexpected trends such as women's soccer impacts exhibiting high sagittal kinematics relative to other sports. Clustering analyses grouped impacts into low and high magnitude/frequency clusters that transcended sport boundaries, with only women's soccer impacts demonstrating tight clustering patterns due to consistent heading biomechanics. We uniquely curated a standardized dataset for multisport head impact biomechanics comparisons. Cross-sport differences in under-investigated biomechanical features such as directional peak kinematics may need to be further examined for potential sport-specific injury risk considerations. Despite substantial gameplay differences, we found interesting shared biomechanical patterns across sports, warranting joint analyses to inform implications in protective equipment design and injury prevention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.