Are Overweight and Obese Youth at Increased Risk for Physical Activity Injuries?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether relationships between physical activity and physical activity injuries are modified by BMI status in youth. METHOD: Data were obtained from the 2006 Canadian Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children survey; a representative study of 7,714 grade 6-10 youth. A sub-sample of 1,814 were re-administered the survey in 2007. Analyses considered relationships among the major variables in theory-driven cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. RESULT: Among normal weight youth, cross-sectional analyses indicated that those who reported high levels of physical activity outside of school experienced 2.28 (95% confidence interval 1.95-2.68) the relative odds for physical activity injury in comparison to those with low levels of physical activity outside of school. Analogous odds ratios for overweight and obese youth were 1.89 (1.31-2.72) and 3.72 (1.89-7.33), respectively. BMI status was not an effect modifier of the relationship between physical activity and physical activity injury. Similar observations were made in the confirmatory longitudinal analyses. CONCLUSION: Concerns surrounding the design of physical activity programmes include side-effects such as injury risk. This study provides some re-assurance that physical activity participation relates to injury in a consistent manner across BMI groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".