2014 Female Athlete Triad Coalition Consensus Statement on Treatment and Return to Play of the Female Athlete Triad: 1st International Conference held in San Francisco, California, May 2012 and 2nd International Conference held in Indianapolis, Indiana, May 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 an early intervention is essential to prevent its progression to serious endpoints that include clinical eating disorders, amenorrhoea and osteoporosis. This consensus statement represents a set of recommendations developed following the 1st (San Francisco, California, USA) and 2nd (Indianapolis, Indiana, USA) International Symposia on the Female Athlete Triad. It is intended to provide clinical guidelines for physicians, athletic trainers and other healthcare providers for the screening, diagnosis and treatment of the Female Athlete Triad and to provide clear recommendations for return to play. The 2014 Female Athlete Triad Coalition Consensus Statement on Treatment and Return to Play of the Female Athlete Triad 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. This consensus paper has been endorsed by the Female Athlete Triad Coalition, an International Consortium of leading Triad researchers, physicians and other healthcare professionals, the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.
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 | 0.030 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
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".