A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF INJURIES IN ONTARIO AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL SOCCER FROM 1997???2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 40 million people worldwide play soccer and it is the fastest growing sport in North America. In Ontario, 339,000 people will have participated in 2000. The safety of these players must be paramount, and through injury analysis we can pinpoint players at risk and develop strategies to protect them. However, the ability to identify risk factors must be preceded by an appreciation of the types of injuries and their frequency of occurrence. PURPOSE: To describe the types and frequencies of all injuries incurred during soccer practice and game play in youth and adult male and female athletes at the amateur and professional levels between 1997 and 2001. METHODS: Our database consists of 149 boys, 73 girls and 184 professional males from 13 teams sustaining a total of 1,756 injuries (n = 1756) prospectively captured by on-site personnel (AT's, DC sports specialists and sports specialist residents) during the games and practices of each team throughout the study period on a specially designed injury-tracking sheet. Information regarding the following parameters (team, surface, age, history, mechanism, exam, diagnosis and treatment) was recorded and then entered into our Injury Tracker software (MBS, v. 4.1) which performs the necessary calculations and displays incidence and frequency information (Body Part, Type of Injury, Surface, 1st/2nd Occurrence) categorized by team, age and gender. RESULTS: The most common injury type and body part injured were sprain and ankle respectively for amateurs (n = 302, n = 284), professionals (n = 407, n = 418), males (n = 228, n = 210) and females (n = 74, n = 74). The majority of injuries occurred on grass (n = 1042) and the most injury-prone age group was those aged 20–21. Professionals (n = 1170) and males (n = 472) sustained a higher number of injuries overall in comparison to amateurs and females respectively. CONCLUSION: These data confirm that professionals, males, and players in their early twenties incur the largest number of injuries, predominantly of the lower extremity. With this information a cohort study to assess risk factors can be performed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".