Maturity status in male child and adolescent athletes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Early-maturing individuals may be at an advantage in some sports. The purpose of this study was to compare maturity status between competitive male child (10-12 years old) and adolescent (14-16 years old) athletes and minimally-active, age-matched controls. METHODS: In total, 224 males were included in the study. Children (n=115) included minimally-active boys (n=34), soccer players (n=26), gymnasts (n=25) and hockey players (n=30). Adolescents (n=109) included minimally-active adolescents (n=31), soccer players (n=30), gymnasts (n=17) and hockey players (n=31). Sexual maturity was assessed using secondary sex characteristics and salivary testosterone concentration (sT). Skeletal age was also assessed, using quantitative ultrasound (Sunlight BonAgeTM). RESULTS: Within each age group, no differences were observed between sport groups in chronological age, sT or pubertal age. In children, hockey players were more skeletally mature (12.43±1.36 years) than all other groups (11.0±1.0; 11.6±1.4 and 11.7±1.4 years for soccer, gymnasts and controls, respectively). In adolescents, hockey players and gymnasts had higher skeletal maturity (16.8±1.5 and 16.9±1.6 years, respectively; P<0.05) than controls (15.99±1.13 years). CONCLUSION: While sexual and hormonal maturity does not appear to differ between similar-aged athletes of different sports, the results suggest greater skeletal maturity in hockey players, even before puberty.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".