Adaptive Alterations in Shoulder Range of Motion and Strength in Young Tennis Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Playing tennis requires unilateral and intensive movement of the upper limb, which may lead to functional adaptations of the shoulder and an increased injury risk. Identifying which athletes will be future elite tennis players starts at 5 to 6 years of age. Therefore, highly skilled players practice intensively in their childhood. However, whether these functional changes occur during the prepubertal years has not been established. OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in glenohumeral-joint-rotation range of motion and strength of the shoulder-complex muscles in prepubertal elite tennis players. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Tennis training sports facilities. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-seven male tennis players (age range = 7-13 years) selected by a regional tennis center of excellence were divided into 3 biological age groups relative to their predicted age at peak height velocity: greater than 4 (n = 26; age = 8.7 ± 0.7 years, height = 132.4 ± 12.9 cm, mass = 27.8 ± 3.8 kg), 3 to 4 (n = 21; age = 10.3 ± 0.6 years, height = 144.9 ± 5.7 cm, mass = 34.7 ± 4.0 kg), and 2 (n = 20; age = 12.8 ± 1.4 years, height = 158.5 ± 8.7 cm, mass = 43.0 ± 8.2 kg) years before their age at peak height velocity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES(S): We measured the internal- and external-rotation ranges of motion of the glenohumeral joint using a goniometer and calculated the total arc of motion. Maximal isometric strength of 8 shoulder muscles was measured using a handheld dynamometer. Strength values were normalized to body weight and used to calculate 4 agonist-to-antagonist strength ratios. RESULTS: The total arc of motion of the glenohumeral joint decreased gradually with biological age (P ≤ .01) due to the decrease in internal-rotation range of motion (P < .001). Absolute strength increased gradually with biological age (P < .001), but the relative strengths and ratios remained similar. CONCLUSIONS: Functional adaptations of the shoulder seen in adolescent and adult tennis players were observed in healthy prepubertal players. This knowledge could help clinicians and coaches more effectively monitor shoulder adaptations to tennis practice during the prepubertal years.
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) | 0.002 | 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".