MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

THE FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT TEST 9+ IS A POOR SCREENING TEST FOR LOWER EXTREMITY INJURIES IN PROFESSIONAL MALE FOOTBALL

2017· article· en· W2605920377 on OpenAlexaff
Arnhild Bakken, Stephen Targett, Tone Bere, Cristiano Eirale, Farooq Aziz, Tol Johannes, Whiteley Rod, Khan Karim, Bahr Roald

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFootballPhysical therapyReceiver operating characteristicPoison controlProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalOdds ratioTest (biology)AthletesInjury preventionInternal medicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The Nine Plus screening battery test (9+) is a series of 11 tests, used to assess limitations in fundamental movement patterns assumed to predispose athletes for injury. Objective To examine the association of the 9+ with lower extremity injuries, and to identify the optimal cut-off point for risk screening. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Professional football league. Participants Male professional football players in Qatar. Interventions The 9+ test was performed prior to the 2013 and 2014 seasons. Time-loss injuries and exposure in training and matches were registered prospectively by club medical staff during 2 consecutive seasons. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs), risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were calculated to determine sensitivity and specificity, and identify the optimal cut-off point for risk assessment. Main Outcome Measurement Lower extremity injuries. Results In total, 363 players completed the 9+ and had injury and exposure registration. There were 527 injuries among 204 players (56.2%) during the 2 seasons; injuries to the thigh were most frequent. There was no association between 9+ total score and the risk of lower extremity injuries (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98–1.06;P=0.44), even when adjusted for exposure (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98–1.12;P=0.21) or other factors in a multivariate analysis (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97–1.06; P=0.60). ROC curve analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.48 for lower extremity injury. No optimal cut-off point to distinguish between injured and non-injured players could be determined. Conclusions The 9+ total score was not associated with lower extremity injury. The 9+ total score was no better than chance for classifying injured and non-injured players. Therefore, the 9+ test cannot be recommended as a screening tool in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicSports injuries and prevention→French-language works237,207→