Hydration Status of Children and Adolescents Attending Summer Sports Camp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous reports show that children become dehydrated at summer sports camps, but whether deficits in body hydration are associated with health-related events is unknown. PURPOSE: To determine if participation in summer sports camps leads to changes in body hydration status and if these changes are associated with health-related events. METHODS: Thirty-four youth (20 males) were tested over 4 days of summer football (FB, n=10), basketball (BB, n=11), or soccer (SC, n=13) camp. The mean±SD for age and body mass (BM) were: 12±1.2y, 47.2±11.5kg in FB; 10.7±1.3y, 43.3±10.1kg in BB; and 9.8±1.7y, 39.8±13.5kg in SC. Hydration status was assessed by measuring BM at the start and end of the day and calculating the % change from initial BM. On the last day of camp, each child completed a questionnaire regarding the incidence of health-related events over the four days. RESULTS: Average % changes from initial BM during each camp are shown in the Table. Values were different (p<0.05) between Day 1 and Day 2 and Day 2 and Day 4 for FB and BB. There were differences (p<0.05) between Day 1 and Day 3 and Day 3 and Day 4 for BB. For SC there were no differences. The % change from initial BM on Day 2 FB was greater than Day 1 SC (p=0.037). Health-related events reported included headache (18.5%), dizziness (7.4%), lightheadedness (11.1%), upset stomach (14.8%), really tired (33.3%), cramps in legs (18.5%), and cramps in side (22.2%). The reporting of healthrelated events did not correspond with the % change from initial BM (p>0.05).Table: Caption not availableCONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents attending summer sports camps did not exhibit signs of significant dehydration. Reporting of health-related events was not associated with changes in body hydration status. Supported by NSERC Canada
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".