DOES INJURY DEFINITION MATTER? THE INFLUENCE OF INJURY DEFINITION ON INTERPRETATIONS OF INJURY RISK IN PRE-PROFESSIONAL BALLET AND CONTEMPORARY DANCERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The influence of injury definition on the interpretation of epidemiological outcomes of injury risk has not been previously evaluated in a dance population. Objective To determine the influence of injury definition (i.e., time loss, medical attention, all complaints) on the prevalence and rate of musculoskeletal injuries in pre-professional ballet and contemporary dancers. Design Prospective cohort. Setting Pre-professional ballet school; university dance program. Participants Dancers registered in full-time pre-professional ballet [n=85, 77 females, median (range) age 15 yrs (11–19 yrs)] and contemporary [n=60, 58 females, 19 yrs (17–30 yrs)] training. Main Outcome Measurements Dancers completed a weekly online questionnaire (modified Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre's Questionnaire on Health Problems) using three definitions for dance-related injuries: (1) time loss (an inability to complete one or more classes, rehearsals or performances one or more days beyond onset); (2) medical attention; and (3) any complaint. Physiotherapists completed injury report forms, capturing dance-related medical attention and time loss injuries. Percent agreement was estimated between injury registration methods. Descriptive statistics [proportions, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)] summarized injury prevalence (IP; seasonal proportion of dancers injured). Injury incidence rates (IIR; number of new injuries/1000 dance exposure hours) were examined for each definition, registration method, and dance style. Results Dancer questionnaire response rate was 98.99%. Agreement between injury registration methods ranged between 58.82% (time loss) and 72.94% (medical attention). Depending on definition, registration, and dance style, IP varied from 9.41% (95% CI: 4.15, 17.71; time loss) to 82.35% (95% CI: 72.56, 89.77; all complaint), and IIRs spanned 0.09 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.17; time loss) to 4.89 (95% CI: 4.04, 5.74; all complaint) injuries/1000 dance hours. Conclusions Injuries resulting in time loss and medical attention underestimate the burden of injury in a pre-professional dance population. To understand the full impact of injury on a dance population, it is imperative that registration methodologies consider definitions that capture all injuries.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".