Effects of an anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention program on performance in adolescent female soccer players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female soccer players are three times more likely to suffer a non-contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear compared with male soccer players. Several ACL injury prevention programs have been developed and are used to reduce injury risk. However, to date there is limited information on how such programs affect physical performance. The aim of this randomized controlled study was to investigate the effects of the Prevent Injury Enhance Performance (PEP) program in adolescent female soccer players. Four soccer teams were randomly assigned to an intervention (PEP) or control (CON) group and assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks on linear sprinting, countermovement jump (CMJ), and two agility tests. A mixed model factorial ANOVA with repeated measures was used to assess for treatment effects on the dependent variables. Improvements in 27.3 and 36.6 m sprint times (<0.10 s) were evident during the first 6 weeks for PEP, but reverted back to baseline values by 12 weeks; there were no changes for 9.1 or 18.2 m sprint times in either group. There was no change in the CMJ height for PEP; however, there was a decrement at 6 and 12 weeks compared with baseline in CON. Performance on the Illinois and pro-agility tests declined in both groups. Our findings demonstrate that improvements in linear sprint performance were small and transient in adolescent female soccer players, and that there was no benefit of the PEP program on CMJ or agility performance. ACL injury prevention programs designed as a structured warm-up routine seem to lack the necessary stimulus to enhance athletic performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".