MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770386707 · doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1409607

Vital statistics and early death predictors of North American professional basketball players: A historical examination

2017· article· en· W2770386707 on OpenAlexaff
Srdjan Lemez, Nick Wattie, Tyler P. Lawler, Joseph Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasketballDemographyMedicineMortality rateAthletesCause of deathPopulationGerontologyDiseasePhysical therapyInternal medicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While empirical evidence suggests that elite athletes have superior lifespan outcomes relative to the general population, less is known regarding their causes of death. The purpose of this study was to critically examine the mortality outcomes of deceased National Basketball Association and American Basketball Association players. Death data were collected from publicly available sources until 11 December 2015, and causes of death were categorized using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD). Mortality was measured through: i) cause-specific crude death rates (CDR), ii) estimates of death rates per athlete-year (AY), and iii) binary and multinomial regression analyses. We identified 514 causes of death from 787 deceased players (M = 68.1 y ± 16.0) from 16 different ICD groups, 432 of which were from natural causes. Findings showed similar leading causes of death and CDRs to sex- and race-matched controls, higher death rate differences per AY within time-dependent variables (i.e., birth decade, race, and height), and a higher likelihood of dying below the median age of death for black and taller players, although this was highly confounded by birth decade. More complete knowledge of mortality outcomes would provide broad public health applications and disarm harmful stereotypes of elite athlete health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sports SciencesSame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207