Incidence, mechanism and risk factors for injury in youth rock climbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rock-climbing participation has grown globally in recent years, and the sport was officially recognised by the International Olympic Committee in 2010. The epidemiology of climbing injuries in adults has been examined, but few studies have investigated injury in youth climbers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence, mechanisms and risk factors for injury in recreational and elite sport climbers and boulderers aged 11-19 years. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: Youth (n=116) were recruited from climbing facilities across Alberta, Canada. Participants completed an anonymous questionnaire from October 2012 to March 2013. Climbing injury incidence proportions and incidence rates (IR) were calculated. ORs with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated for possible risk factors. RESULTS: The injury IR was 4.44 injuries/1000 climbing hours (95% CI 3.74 to 5.23). Sprains (27%) and strains (26%) were the predominant injury types, and repetitive overuse was the primary mechanism of injury (42%). Hands and fingers were the most commonly injured locations (21%). Exploratory analyses showed three risk factors for injury: older age (15-19 vs 11-14 years; OR=11.30, 95% CI 2.33 to 54.85), injury in a sport other than climbing (OR=6.46, 95% CI 1.62 to 25.68) and preventive taping (OR=5.09, 95% CI 1.44 to 18.02). CONCLUSIONS: Injury risk is high in youth climbers. Findings are consistent with the reported rates, types and mechanisms in adults. Modifiable risk factors warrant further investigation to inform the development of injury prevention strategies, targeting high-risk climbers including adolescents and those with previous injury.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".