A meta-analysis of maturation-related variation in adolescent boy athletes’ adaptations to short-term resistance training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis investigated the maturation-related pattern of adaptations to resistance training in boy athletes. We included studies examining the effects of 4-16-week resistance training programmes in healthy boy athletes aged 10-18 years. Pooled estimates of effect size for change in strength across all studies (n = 19) were calculated using the inverse-variance random effects model for meta-analyses. Estimates were also calculated for groups based on likely biological maturity status ("before", "during" and "after" peak height velocity). Using the standardised mean difference, resistance training increased strength across all groups (effect size = 0.98, [CI: 0.70-1.27]). Strength gains were larger during (1.11 [0.67-1.54]) and after (1.01 [0.56-1.46]) peak height velocity than before (0.5 [-0.06-1.07]). Adaptations to resistance training are greater in adolescent boys during or after peak height velocity. These findings should help coaches to optimise the timing of training programmes that are designed to improve strength in boy 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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".