Validity and reliability of self-assessment of sexual maturity in elite adolescent athletes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The variability along the progression of different stages of maturation during puberty suggests that chronological age is not the best indicator in assessing biological status during adolescence. This is particularly relevant for adolescents involved in high level of sports competitions, which implies greater physiological and biomechanical demands to the body. Therefore, monitoring physical changes during this period may help the coaching and medical staff to construct and adapt on an individual basis, better training programs and, then, improve performance while preventing injuries. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and the reliability of self-assessment of sexual maturity among elite adolescent athletes. METHODS: Using the Tanner sexual maturity method, 24 male and 23 female athletes aged 12 to 17 years, were assessed by a physician, and, then, self-assessed for sexual maturity. RESULTS: Agreement with the physician ratings was high (k coefficients of 0.79 for pubic hair and 0.67 for genital development for boys and 0.75 and 0.85 for pubic hair and breast development for girls, respectively). Spearman correlations ranged from 0.86 to 0.97 (P= or <0.05). CONCLUSION: The self-assessment is a valid and reliable method to assess sexual maturity in elite adolescent 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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".