Growth and Maturation of Adolescent Female Gymnasts, Swimmers, and Tennis Players
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Intensive training at a young age may adversely affect the growth and sexual maturation of female athletes, resulting in compromised adult stature. PURPOSE: To compare the somatic growth, sexual maturation, and final adult height of elite adolescent female athletes. METHODS: Serial measures of height, sitting height, and breast and pubic hair development were taken on 81 gymnasts, 60 swimmers, and 81 tennis players between 8 and 19 yr of age. Menarcheal age, parental heights, maternal menarcheal age, and number of training hours were also recorded. Final adult heights were obtained from a subsample of the athletes (N = 110). RESULTS: Gymnasts were significantly shorter than tennis players and swimmers at all chronological ages during adolescence, and they attained menarche at an older age (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in adult heights. During adolescence, no difference were found in standing height to sitting height ratios, leg length to standing height ratios, or sitting height to leg length ratios between sports (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results from this study suggest that regular training did not affect final adult stature and that, when aligned by biological age, the tempo of sexual maturation was similar in these young athletes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it