Evaluation of Dietary Supplement Use in Wheelchair Rugby Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheelchair rugby is a rapidly growing Paralympic sport; however, research remains predominantly in the realms of physiology and biomechanics. Currently, there is little investigation into nutrition and dietary supplement use among wheelchair rugby athletes (WRA). The aim of this study was to assess the types of dietary supplements (DS) used, the prevalence of usage, and the reasons for use among WRA. The secondary aim was to report utilized and preferred sources of nutritional information among this population. A valid, reliable Dietary Supplement Questionnaire was used to report supplement use and reasons for use. Male (n = 33) and female (n = 9) WRA were recruited at a national tournament and through emailing coaches of various Canadian teams. Dietary supplement usage was prevalent as 90.9% of males and 77.8% of females reported usage within the past three months with the most regularly used supplements being vitamin D (26.2%), electrolytes (19.5%), and protein powder (19.5%). The most common reason for usage was performance. The top sources of nutrition information were dietitian/nutritionist and the internet. Further investigation into DS use is needed to help create nutritional guidelines that are accessible to WRA and athletes with disabilities in general.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".