MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2157686974 · doi:10.1136/bjsm.2011.084038.88

Re-defining normal: bone mineral density in elite female athletes

2011· article· en· W2157686974 on OpenAlexaff
Phil Cutti, Reid W. Steele, Ian Shrier, Daniel Garza, Willem Meeuwisse, L Bacharach, G. O. Matheson

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAthletesBone mineralPhysical therapyBone healthPopulationElite athletesInternal medicineOsteoporosisEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background College age female athletes are susceptible to decreased bone mineral density (BMD) which puts them at an elevated risk for poor bone health in the future. Objective The primary purpose of this study was to compare site-specific and total body BMD of college-age female athletes across sports of varying impact level. Secondary objectives included (1) evaluating the relationship between BMD and menstrual, family bone health, and personal bone health histories; (2) to determine the best clinical predictors of BMD in this population. Design Cross-sectional. Setting NCAA Division I female athletes screened at university sports medicine centre. Participants 265 (20.1±1.19 years, 66.5±10.9 kg, 1.7±0.09 m) college-age female athletes from 14 different sporting teams. Interventions Personal and family health questionnaire, Total Body (TB), anteroposterior Spine (APS), Dual Femur (DF) BMD and Body Composition scans using GE Lunar iDXA. Main outcome measurements Athletes were separated into three sport impact categories. BMD measurements were compared across the impact levels. Both stepwise regression and classification and regression tree analysis were conducted to determine significant predictors of BMD. Results Athletes participating in low and moderate impact sports had significantly lower TB and site-specific BMD values when compared to high impact athletes (TB: High=1.24, Mod=1.18, Low=1.15; APS High=1.33, Mod=1.25, Low=1.21; DF High=1.25, Mod=1.12, Low=1.11). The BMD values for each secondary exposure were lower in those with history of abnormal menses (TB-1.19, APS- 1.24, DF- 1.17), previous stress fracture/reaction (TB-1.19, APS- 1.27, DF- 1.17), and poor family bone health (TB-1.18, APS- 1.26, DF- 1.16). Classification and regression trees (CART) analysis shows highest TB mean BMD was found in high impact athletes with LBM>50.9 kg. Conclusion There is an ordinal relationship between sport impact level and BMD. Using CART analysis, gynaecological age, impact level and LBM are the best predictors of mean BMD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→