WEIGHTY PROBLEMS: SPORT INJURIES IN OVERWEIGHT OR OBESE ACTIVE CANADIAN ADOLESCENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite the multitude of benefits of sport participation, it is the leading cause of injury requiring medical attention in Canadian youth. Previous research found both increased exposure to sport and body mass index (BMI) are injury risk factors. As a modifiable risk factor, further examination of the association between being obese or overweight and sport injury is warranted, accounting for sport exposure level. Objective To examine the relationship between sport injury and overweight and obese weight, versus normal weight, among a sub-sample of adolescents. It is hypothesized that overweight and obese adolescents will have increased odds of sport injury. Design Cross-sectional analysis of the national population-based Canadian Community Health Survey (2009/10) by Statistics Canada. Setting Canada. Participants Nationally representative sample (n=6163) of Canadian adolescents aged 12–19 years, classified ‘active’ by daily energy expenditure in physical activity minimum 3 METS (Kcal/kg/day). Risk factor assessment BMI was calculated using self-report data. Using Coles Classification System, participants were grouped: normal, overweight, or obese categories. Other variables (sex, ethnicity, daily physical activity, socio-economic status) were included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis to control for confounding. Main outcome measurements Sport injury: an injury in the past 12 months while engaged in sport or exercise. Results Among the sample of active adolescents, 25% (n=1 529) reported a sport injury in the past 12 months. In the final adjusted model, no significant relationship was found between being overweight and sport injury (OR=1.05 95% CI=0.90–1.22). A significantly reduced odds of sport injury was observed among obese adolescents (OR=0.72 95% CI=0.53–0.99) compared to their normal weight counterparts. Conclusions Overweight or obese active adolescents do not appear to be at increased risk of sports injury in this sample. The decreased odds among obese adolescents may be because of differences in intensity of sport participation or type of sporting activity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".