Golf-related stress fractures: a structured review of the literature.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stress fractures are troublesome injuries. Sites of occurrence are activity-related and specific anatomical sites are endemic to certain sports. Little is known about stress fracture patterns in golf. OBJECTIVE: A structured review of the literature was conducted to identify the occurrence and injury sites of golf-related stress fractures. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus was conducted using a combination of controlled vocabulary and truncated text words to capture all articles relevant to golf-related stress fractures. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: The search resulted in 164 articles, of which 13 met the inclusion, and reported 44 cases of golf-related stress fractures. Seven anatomical injury sites were identified with rib stress fracture being the most commonly reported. Stress fractures occurred on the golfer's lead-side in 80% of cases. CONCLUSION: Golf-related stress fractures are infrequent injuries. The ribs were the most common stress fracture site, and a predilection for lead-side involvement was reported.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".