Acute caffeine supplementation promotes small to moderate improvements in performance tests indicative of in-game success in professional female basketball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of acute caffeine supplementation on anaerobic performance in professional female basketball players. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, experimental design was used in a randomized counterbalanced manner. In separate sessions, 10 professional basketball players ingested caffeine (3 mg/kg body mass) or a placebo (dextrose: 3 mg/kg body mass) 60 min before completing countermovement jumps (CMJ) with and without arm swing, a squat jump (SJ), the Lane Agility Drill, 20-m sprints (with 5-m and 10-m split times recorded) with and without dribbling a ball, and a suicide run. Participants provided ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and ratings of perceived performance 30 min following testing. Data analyses included the use of effect size (ES) and significance. Caffeine supplementation produced small nonsignificant (p > 0.05) increases in CMJ without arm swing (ES = 0.30), CMJ with arm swing (ES = 0.29), SJ (ES = 0.33), and the lane agility drill (ES = –0.27). Caffeine supplementation produced small to moderate significant improvements in 10-m (ES = –0.63; p = 0.05) and 20-m (ES = –0.41; p = 0.04) sprint times without dribbling. Caffeine supplementation promoted a moderate significant reduction in RPE during the test battery (ES = –1.18; p = 0.04) and a small nonsignificant improvement in perceived performance (ES = 0.23; p = 0.53). Acute caffeine supplementation may produce small to moderate improvements in key performance attributes required for basketball while reducing RPE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".