Differences In Pre-season Fitness Between Varsity Athletes With And Without Competitive Season Lower-extremity Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to determine the prevalence of lower extremity (LE) injury reported by varsity athletes in team sports and quantify the difference in baseline fitness between athletes with a LE injury and those without any reported injury during the competitive playing season. METHODS: The sample consisted of 11 teams: ice hockey M/W, basketball M/W, volleyball M/W, soccer M/W, field hockey W, rugby W, football M (N = 85 without injury; 131 reporting a LE injury). All athletes completed the same baseline fitness measures at the beginning of the fall school term. Injury information was collected prospectively throughout the season using a standardized injury report form. Pre-season testing included: sprint time over 40 m (0-5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40 and 0-40 m time splits), push-ups, curl-ups, vertical jump (VJ) height, leg power (calculated from VJ ht), sit-and-reach and aerobic power. RESULTS: During pre-season, injured athletes sprint times were slower (p<0.05) over 10-20 m (1.42±0.18 sec vs. 1.36±0.12 sec) and 20-40 m (2.71±0.41 sec vs. 2.55±0.32). Athletes with LE injuries completed 15±10 push-ups compared to only 12±9 for non-injured athletes (P = 0.057). Of all male soccer athletes 75% reported a LE injury and 71 % of male volleyball players reported a LE injury. The highest reported LE injuries for female teams were field hockey (59 %) and women's basketball (56 %). The teams with the least percentage of LE injury were football and women's hockey (34 and 35 % respectively). Of all reported injuries during the competitive season 45% were for the LE. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional measures of flexibility and musculoskeletal health (sit and reach, push-ups, curl-ups) were not significantly different between injured and non injured athletes. However, non-injured athletes have greater sprint ability at baseline which may indicate improved LE function compared to athletes who incurred a LE injury during the competitive season. Further research looking at the prognostic value of fitness measures on time to injury may provide additional important guidelines for off-season exercise prescription in varsity athletes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".