MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073286899 · doi:10.1249/jsr.0000000000000077

2014 Female Athlete Triad Coalition Consensus Statement on Treatment and Return to Play of the Female Athlete Triad

2014· article· en· W2073286899 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth A. Joy, Mary Jane De Souza, Aurelia Nattiv, Madhusmita Misra, Nancy I. Williams, Rebecca J. Mallinson, Jenna C. Gibbs, Marion P. Olmsted, Marci Goolsby, Gordon O. Matheson, Michelle T. Barrack, Louise M. Burke, Barbara L. Drinkwater, C. Lebrun, Anne B. Loucks, Margo Mountjoy, Jeanne F. Nichols, Jorunn Sundgot Borgen

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Sports Medicine Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsFemale athlete triadDisordered eatingMedicineTriad (sociology)AthletesAmenorrheaIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyFamily medicinePsychiatryEating disordersPsychologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The female athlete triad is a medical condition often observed in physically active girls and women and involves three components: (1) low energy availability with or without disordered eating, (2) menstrual dysfunction, and (3) low bone mineral density. Female athletes often present with one or more of the three triad components, and early intervention is essential to prevent its progression to serious end points that include clinical eating disorders, amenorrhea, and osteoporosis. This consensus statement presents a set of recommendations developed following the first (San Francisco, CA) and second (Indianapolis, IN) International Symposia on the Female Athlete Triad. This consensus statement was intended to provide clinical guidelines for physicians, athletic trainers, and other health care providers for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of the female athlete triad and to provide clear recommendations for return to play. The expert panel has proposed a risk stratification point system that takes into account magnitude of risk to assist the physician in decision making regarding sport participation, clearance, and return to play. Guidelines are offered for clearance categories, management by a multidisciplinary team, and implementation of treatment contracts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0140.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations246
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Sports Medicine ReportsSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207