Subjektive Funktionsscores des Bewegungsapparates in Ruhe-, Trainings- und Wettkampfphase bei unverletzten Kaderathleten im Stabhochsprung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use of commonly used subjective, clinical scores to describe the health status of high-level competitive athletes in different phases of one training year. METHOD: 32 high-level pole vaulters (17 males and 15 females) were followed with support of "Deutscher Leichtathletik Verband" and "Leichtathletik Verband Nordrhein" for the period of a whole competition year. We used the Tegner activity scale (TAS), the Lysholm score and WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteo-arthritis Index) during recreational, training and competition periods. The score results for the athletes in the recreational phase were compared to the results of a control group. Also, the score results for the athletes in the different periods of the training year were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: The statistical comparison of the score values of the control group with those of the athletes in the recreational phase showed no significant differences. Therefore, high-level athletes in pole vault have no subjective physical limitations compared to a control group. In the competition period, the athletes rated themselves lower in the TAS and in the WOMAC index than in the recreational and training phase. The Lysholm score did not show any significant change of subjective physical status in the competition period compared to recreation and training. CONCLUSION: The subjective clinical scores used in this study do not show any changes in the health status of high-level competitive athletes in the course of one training year. If subjective scores are to be used to monitor the health status of high-level athletes, the Tegner scale, as well as the Lysholm and WOMAC scores are most likely not sensitive enough to measure possible over-use or repetitive stress problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".