Hormonal responses to a rugby match: a brief review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rugby is an intermittent team sport, commonly stressing the endocrine system by physiological efforts. However, no review has synthesized the available literature on the hormonal responses to a rugby match. The purpose of this review was to examine the hormonal responses to a rugby match. Mediator and moderator variables for the rugby match-hormonal responses relationship were also discussed. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The systematic search was conducted using different databases and according to the Population/Intervention or Exposure/Comparison/Outcome(s) (PICO) criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The data obtained in the present review show that match contests were the moderator variable between rugby match-testosterone changes relationship. Particularly, official matches decreased pre-to-post testosterone levels by 43.9%, while simulated matches increased pre-to-post testosterone levels by 33.6%. There were no significant differences between official and simulated contests for the cortisol response to a rugby match which could be explained in part by the small numbers of included studies and participants (71 high-level male players). Thus, it has been shown that a rugby match provides considerable stress to the endocrine system, which lasts up 38-48 h into the recovery period. CONCLUSIONS: The hormonal assessment of rugby players is a valid tool for monitoring stress during a rugby match and provides the opportunity to identify how athletes cope with stress induced by a competition. The information also provides potential for various mental/recovery strategies that may contribute to performance enhancement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".