Risk Factors for Injury in Indoor Compared with Outdoor Adolescent Soccer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the epidemiology of indoor soccer injuries. PURPOSE: Injury rates and risk factors for injury in adolescent indoor and outdoor soccer in the same cohort of players will be identified and compared. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (prevalence); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The study population was a random sample of 21 adolescent (ages 13-17 years) outdoor soccer teams (N = 317). The subcohort included players continuing to play in the indoor soccer season (n = 142). The injury definition included any injury occurring in soccer that resulted in medical attention, the inability to complete a session, and/or missing a subsequent session. RESULTS: The overall injury rate found in indoor soccer over 20 weeks was 4.45 injuries per 1000 player hours (95% confidence interval, 3.1-6.19). The overall injury rate found in the 13-week outdoor soccer season among a similar cohort was 5.59 injuries per 1000 player hours (95% confidence interval, 4.42-6.97). The relative risk of injury suggests that there was no significant difference between injury rates by age group or gender in indoor soccer compared with outdoor soccer. The risk of injury in the most elite division of play was greater in outdoor compared with indoor soccer (relative risk, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-6.12). The most commonly injured body part in both indoor and outdoor soccer was the ankle, followed by the groin in indoor and the knee in outdoor soccer. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in overall injury rates found by gender or age group for indoor compared with outdoor soccer. Future research should focus on injury prevention strategies to reduce lower extremity injury in indoor and outdoor adolescent soccer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".