INJURY RATES, MECHANISMS, AND RISK FACTORS FOR INJURY IN YOUTH ROCK CLIMBERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Participation in rock climbing has grown globally in recent years. In 2010, the International Federation of Sport Climbing was officially recognized by the International Olympic Committee as part of the Olympic Family. Although some studies exist describing adult sport climbing injuries, few have examined injury in youth climbers. Objective To examine incidence, mechanisms, and risk factors for injury in 11- to 19-year-old recreational and elite sport climbers and boulderers. Design Cross-sectional study design. Setting Elite and recreational youth climbers were recruited from climbing facilities across Alberta, Canada. Participants Male and female climbers, aged 11-19 years, recruited from competitive junior teams and from recreational programs at each gym. In total, 285 participants were approached and 116 (41%) completed an anonymous questionnaire. Risk factor assessment Potential risk factors included climbing level, age, sex, height, weight, grade at which subjects climbed, injury in a sport other than climbing, risk-taking behaviours, socioeconomic status, climbing disciplines performed, participation in sports other than climbing, helmet use, preventive taping, use of cool-down, and climbing exposure hours. Main outcome measurements The primary outcome measure was climbing injury. Medical attention injuries and injuries resulting in time loss from climbing were also measured. Results The incidence rate of climbing injury was 4.44 injuries/1000 climbing hours (95% CI; 3.74, 5.23). Sprains and strains were the predominant injury type, and the primary mechanism of injury was repetitive overuse, followed by falls. Hands and fingers were the most commonly injured locations. Older age (15–19-year-olds), injury in a sport other than climbing, and preventive taping were shown to be risk factors for injury. Conclusions Climbing injury incidence rates are high in youth climbers. Findings are consistent with climbing injury studies in adults. Potential modifiable risk factors warrant further investigation in order to inform development of future injury prevention strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".