The Effect of Concentrating Periods of Physical Activity on the Risk of Injury in Organized Sports in a Pediatric Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The trend in pediatric sport organizations is to regroup activities into tournaments. Sports-related injuries in children are a public concern. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between sport injuries and consolidation of physical activity in children. DESIGN: A case-crossover study. SETTING: The emergency department of a tertiary care hospital for approximately 1 year in 2006. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants had to be between 8 to 16 years of age, presenting to the emergency department for an acute injury that occurred during a timed organized sport event. ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS: A standardized questionnaire was used to evaluate the number of hours of organized physical activity, which was defined as a supervised exercise leading to competitions. The number of hours of activity was compared between case periods (48 hours and 7 days) and control periods of same length. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: An injury was defined as any acute problem with organic tissue that occurred during a sport. RESULTS: On average, participants performed 136 minutes of organized sport activity in the 48 hours preceding the injury for a mean difference of 8 +/- 18 min. They also performed 356 minutes of organized sports in the 7 days prior the injury. This represented an increase of 40 +/- 31 minutes compared to the control periods. CONCLUSIONS: More injuries were observed if the athletes had increased the concentration of activity in the 7 days prior. Although small, this difference reflected a minor clinical effect. In our study, we failed to disclose an association for the period of 48 hours.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".