ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Comparison of Six Data Cleaning Methods for Determining Repetitive Head Impact Exposure in Youth Tackle Football.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeInstrumented mouthguards (iMGs) are commonly used to quantify head acceleration event (HAE) exposure, but accurate interpretation requires rigorous data cleaning methods. This study compared six data cleaning methods for determining HAE rates and magnitudes, as well as cleaning method validity compared to the 5
methodsFifty athletes (ages 8-12) wore Impact Monitoring Mouthguards during games across one season. Six data cleaning methods were applied to HAEs, including uncleaned data, time-windowing, proprietary classification algorithms, video verification, and combinations thereof. Impact rate, peak linear acceleration (PLA), and peak rotational velocity (PRV) were compared across methods using rate ratios, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), and non-parametric analyses.
resultsData cleaning methods significantly influenced HAE rate but had minimal effect on magnitude. The uncleaned dataset produced the highest HAE rate (67.75 per athlete exposure), while the most stringent method (i.e., time-windowed, proprietary algorithm-classified, video-verified data) yielded the lowest (0.70 per athlete exposure). Although the time-windowed, proprietary algorithm-classified data demonstrated high specificity (0.96), it demonstrated low sensitivity (0.37) and positive predictive value (0.39) when compared to video-verified data. Differences in PLA across methods were not significant; only one significant difference in PRV was observed.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the impact of data cleaning on HAE quantification in youth tackle football. Although video verification remains best practice, it is resource intensive. Time-windowed, algorithm-classified data may serve as an efficient proxy in similar cohorts, though researchers should recognize its limitations. Findings support the need for standardized data cleaning methods and transparent reporting to ensure accurate and comparable HAE exposure estimates.
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.